Master Thesis Civil 12

EVALUATION OF LIVE-LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS (LLDFs)
OF NEXT BEAM BRIDGES

A Thesis Presented

By

ABHIJEET KUMAR SINGH

Submitted to the Graduate School of the
University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment
Of the requirement for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

May 2012

CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING


A Thesis Presented

by

ABHIJEET KUMAR SINGH

Approved as to style and content by:

____________________________
Brea, Sergio, Chairperson

____________________________
Lardner, Thomas, Member

____________________________
Civjan, Scott, Member

____________________________________
Richard N. Palmer, Department Head
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

iii

ACKNOWLEMDGEENT

I would like to extend my thanks to my advisor, Dr Sergio Brea for his guidance and
support throughout the project. It is his guidance and support because of which I am able
to complete my thesis. I would also like to say thank to my committee members, Dr
Lardner and Dr Civjan for their assistance and feedback on the research. I am also
thankful to the guidance provided by Kalayacki Emre in learning the advance tools SAP
2000 V14.2 in a very short duration of time. I am also thankful to my parents who were
always with me in my good and bad time and helped me to look at life in more
comprehensive and balanced manner

iv

ABSTRACT


MAY 2012
ABHIJEET KUMAR SINGH, M.S.C.E.
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST
Directed by: Professor Sergio Brea

A new precast-prestressed cross section was recently developed by a consortium of
engineers from the six New England states, New York and members of the northeast
region of PCI. The northeast extreme Tee (NEXT) beam is efficient for medium Bridge
spans (50 to 80 ft long). Field formwork savings are introduced by having a flange cast
integrally during fabrication of the beams at the precasting plant. Job safety is increased
because a working platform is created. The flange width of the NEXT Beams can be
adjusted during fabrication to accommodate roadways of different widths and skew
angles. Because the section is new with complexity in its shape, the present design
guidance cannot be used to evaluate LLDFs for NEXT beams within the context of the
AASHTO LRFD. In particular, the use of live-load distribution factors (LLDFs)
equations in LRFD for NEXT beams is not straightforward. The distance between the
beam webs is variable depending on whether it is measured within a beam module or
between adjacent modules. In absence of detailed information a PCI technical committee
evaluated LLDFs (through AASHTO 2010 Bridge specification) for the NEXT beams
used in the Brimfield Bridge by two different approaches and found one of them
conservative. The conservative approach was single stem which uses the average spacing

v

(between webs ([S1+S3]/2)) for use in the LLDF equations.. The committee expressed
concerns about whether trends of LLDFs would be similar for other parametric sets, and
would like to standardize the methodology for the Bridge projects in Massachusetts with
NEXT beam as the girder. To verify the conservativeness of single stem methodology
(for the evaluation of LLDFs) for other parameters this research project was initiated.
LLDFs are evaluated based on the two approaches and compared with the LLDFs
obtained through finite element modeling.
The results of 40-3D finite element models have been used to compare the LLDFs
obtained from AASHTO 2010 Bridge design specification. The results were also used to
compare different parameters that affect LLDFs of NEXT beams including span, skew
angle, and beam end fixity. The finite element models were created using a Bridge
prototype that is being instrumented for future field verification of the analyses. The
models were created using frame elements for the beams and shell elements for the cast
in place deck. The integral abutment and foundation of the Bridges was included in the
models in which piles are created using frame elements and abutments are created using
shell elements. The results indicate that the approach taken for the design of NEXT
beams is in general conservative for interior girders of the Bridge. On the contrary such
the adopted approach was not yielding the higher value of LLDFs. The variation in
strains due to losses are compared by two methods (strains variation obtained from field
data and strain variation obtained based on AASHTO equation of losses) to verify the
AASHTO equation of losses.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES (LOT) - ................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES (LOF)- ............................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ..1
1.1 NEXT Beam Introduction and Benefits ............................................................... 1
1.2 Motivation of Thesis ................................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 LLDF Introduction ............................................................................................. 3
1.2.2 LLDF Types ....................................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 NEXT Beam Spacings and Problem Statement ................................................ 4
1.3 Brimfield Bridge Project ........................................................................................... 7
1.4 Scope of Research ..................................................................................................... 8
1.4.1 Evaluation of LLDFs from Latest AASHTO Specification .............................. 9
1.4.2 Evaluation of LLDF from FEM Methods .......................................................... 9
1.4.3 Field Test ......................................................................................................... 10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 12
2.1 Field Testing ........................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Laboratory testing and Analytical Modeling .......................................................... 14
3. CALCULATION OF AASHTO LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTOR ............... 18
3.1 Super Structure Brimfield Bridge .......................................................................... 19
3.2 Sub Structure and Foundation Brimfield Bridge ................................................... 21

vii

3.3 Calculation of LLDFs for NEXT Beam Bridge ..................................................... 22
3.4 Calculation of LLDFs - Single Stem Approach (SST-type k) ............................... 23
3.5 Calculation of LLDFs - Double Stem Approach (DST - type i)............................ 24
3.6 Calculation of LLDFs for Interior Girders ............................................................. 25
3.7 Calculation of LLDFs for Exterior Girders ........................................................... 29
3.7.1 Load Position for LLDF Calculation of Exterior Girders - SST Approach ..... 30
3.7.2 Load Position for LLDF Calculation of Exterior Girders - DST Approach ... 32
3.8 LLDF Values Computed Using Single Stem Approach (type k) ........................... 34
3.9 LLDF Values Computed Using Double Stem Approach (type i) .......................... 37
3.10 Comparison between Single and Double Stem Approach .................................... 39
3.10.1 Comparison of Results for Various Spans - 0o Skew .................................... 39
3.10.2 Comparison of Results for Various Skew Angles -66.67ft (20.32m) ........... 41
3.11 Summary .............................................................................................................. 44
4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF NEXT BEAM BRIDGES .................................. 45
4.1 Modeling of Bridge ................................................................................................. 45
4.1.1 Modeling of the Super structure ...................................................................... 46
4.1.2 Deck width and division of lane ...................................................................... 49
4.1.3 Modeling of Foundation .................................................................................. 50
4.1.3.1 Modeling of Abutment ........................................................................... 50
4.1.3.2 Modeling of Piles .................................................................................... 51
4.2 Methodology for the Parametric Evaluation of LLDFs using FEM Analysis ........ 52
4.2.1 Bending Moment and Shear Force in Line Model ........................................... 54
4.2.2 Evaluation of LLDFs ....................................................................................... 56

viii

4.2.2.1. LLDFs for Simply Supported Bridge .......................................................... 57
4.2.2.2 LLDFs for Integral Abutment Bridge Models ............................................. 62
4.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 68
5 PARAMETRIC STUDIES IN EVALUATION OF LLDFs ......................................... 71
5.1 Comparison of AASHTO LLDFs and FEM Analyses LLDFs ............................... 71
5.1.1 Trends Observed for Span Variations .............................................................. 72
5.1.2 Trends Observed for Skew Angle Variations .................................................. 75
5.2 Comparison of LLDFs Obtained Through Different Methods ............................... 80
5.2.1 Comparison of LLDFs for Parametric Variations in Span .............................. 80
5.2.2 Comparison of LLDFs for Parametric Variations in Skew Angle ................... 83
5.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 85
6 STRAIN EVALAUATION AND VERIFICATION AT DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTUION STAGES ......................................................................................... 88
6.1 Stages for Bridge Erection and Strain Evaluation .................................................. 88
6.2 Bridge Instrumentation Details ............................................................................... 89
6.3 Evaluation of Longitudinal Strain ........................................................................... 91
6.3.1 Strain Variation due to Prestress Losses Analytical Evaluation ................... 92
6.3.1.1 Strain due to Prestressing Forces ............................................................ 93
6.3.1.2 Calculation of Stresses Induced due to Prestressing Force ..................... 93
6.3.1.3 Stress Variation due to Losses and Self Weight ..................................... 96
6.3.1.4 Short-Term Loss with Relaxation Loss .................................................. 96
6.3.1.5 Time Dependent (Long-term) Losses .................................................. 100
6.3.2 Longitudinal Strains Determined from Field Data ........................................ 107

ix

6.3.2.1 Evaluation of Stage Wise Strain variation due to losses.................. 108
6.3.2.2 Cumulative Strains by Construction Stage ....................................... 110
6.4 Comparison of Measured and Calculated Strains ................................................. 111
6.5 NEXT Beam Strain Profiles at Various Construction Stages ............................... 117
6.5.1 Evaluation of Creep and Shrinkage Strains ................................................... 117
6.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 123
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 124
7.1 Outcome and Suggestions ..................................................................................... 125
7.1.1 Verification of outcome of PCI technical committee. ................................... 125
7.1.2 Trend Comparison Span Parameter ............................................................... 125
7.1.3 Trend comparison Skew Parameter ............................................................... 126
7.1.4 Comparison for LLDFs with different end condition .................................... 126
7.1.5 Verification of Prestress Loss Equation of AASHTO ................................... 127
APPENDICES.128

APPENDIX A: CURVE EVALUATION F0R SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION 128
APPENDIX B : DATE AND TIME OF RECORDED FIELD DATA .......................... 130
APPENDIX C: LOSS EVALUAION ............................................................................. 131
APPENDIX D: STAGE WISE STRESS EVALUATION ............................................. 141
APPENDIX E: STAGE WISE STRAIN EVALUATION ............................................. 145
APPENDIX F : STRAIN AND DATA IN FIELD ......................................................... 149
APPENDIX G: STRAIN VARIATION FOR DIFFERENT STAGES .......................... 172
APPENDIX H: STAGE WISE CUMULATIVE STRAIN ............................................ 179
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 185

x

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1: Cross section properties for Use in AASHTO LLDF equations ............................... 27
3.2: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Interior Girder .................................................................. 35
3.3: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Exterior Girder................................................................. 35
3.4: LLDFs-Shear Force-Interior Girder........................................................................... 36
3.5: LLDFs-Shear Force- Exterior Girder ........................................................................ 36
3.6: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Interior Girder .................................................................. 37
3.7: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Exterior Girder................................................................. 38
3.8: LLDFs-Shear Force-Interior Girder........................................................................... 38
3.9: LLDFs-Shear Force- Exterior Girder ........................................................................ 39
3.10: Bending Moment LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
Skew) .......................................... 40
3.11: Shear Force LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
skew) .................................................... 40
3.12: Bending Moment LLDFs Different Skew Angles (Span = 66.67 ft (20.32 m)) ... 42
3.13: Shear Force LLDFs Different Skew Angles (66.67 ft (20.32 m) Span) ............... 42
4.1: Section Property comparison ..................................................................................... 47
4.2: Different parameteric sets for LLDF Evaluation...53
4.3: Maximum Action for Line Model ............................................................................. 56
4.4 : LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Lane 1 Loaded) ............................................ 58
4.5: LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Lane 2 Loaded) ............................................. 59
4.6: LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Lane 3 Loaded) ............................................. 60
4.7: LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Two or more Lanes Loaded) ........................ 61
4.8: LLDFs for Bending Moment and Shear Force .......................................................... 62

xi

4.9: LLDF-IAB (Lane 1 Loaded)...................................................................................... 64
4.10: LLDF-IAB (Lane 2 Loaded).................................................................................... 65
4.11: LLDF-IAB (Lane 3 Loaded).................................................................................... 66
4.12: LLDF- IAB (Two or more than Lanes Loaded) ...................................................... 67
4.13: LLDF for Moment and Shear Force ........................................................................ 68
4.14(a-d): LLDFs Obtained From FEM........................................................................... 69
5.1: Bending Moment LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
Skew) ............................................ 72
5.2: Shear Force LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
skew)...73

5.3: Bending Moment LLDFs Different Skew Angles (Span = 66.67 ft (20.32 m)) .... 76
5.4: Shear Force LLDFs Different Skew Angles (66.67 ft (20.32 m)
Span)..77
6.1: Brimfield Bridge-Section Property ............................................................................ 93
6.2: Details of Strand Layer used in NEXT beams ........................................................... 94
6.3: Prestressing force and Stress Factor .......................................................................... 95
6.4 : Stress and Strain due to Prestressing ........................................................................ 96
6.5: Stress due to Self Weight ........................................................................................... 98
6.6: Stress and Strain at Stage 1 ....................................................................................... 99
6.7(a-f): Stage wise Creep and Shrinkage Losses ........................................................... 101
6.8: Stress due to Change in Effective Span ................................................................... 104
6.9: Stress and Strain between Stage 1 and Stage 2 ........................................................ 105
6.10: Stress Change due to Change in Effective Span.106

6.11: Stress Change Induced by Weight of Wet Concrete.............................................. 107
6.12: Field Data for NEXT Beam 1 ................................................................................ 109

xii

6.13: Strain Variation due to Creep and Shrinkage.....110

6.14: Stage Wise Cumulative Strain ............................................................................... 111
6.15 Long Term Loss Comparison for All Six NEXT Beams.....113

6.16: comparison of Strain Variation due to Time Dependent Loss............................... 122
B1 : Date of Field Data ................................................................................................... 130
C1 (a-f): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beams ........................................ 135
D1 (a-f): Stage Wise Load Related Stress (By Analytical Method) .............................. 141
E1 (a-f): Stage Wise Cumulative Strain (By Analytical Method) .................................. 145
F1 (a-f): Field Data for NEXT Beams ............................................................................ 149
G1 (a-f): Stage Wise True Load Related Strain for NEXT Beas .................................... 173
H1 (a-f): Stage Wise Cumulative Strain for NEXT Beams ............................................ 179

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Benefits of NEXT Beam ............................................................................................... 2
1.2: NEXT Beam with Varying Spacing Between Stems. ................................................. 5
1.3: I type of Girder (Double T Beam Girder) .................................................................... 5
1.4 : K type of Girder (I Beam Girder) ............................................................................... 6
3.1: Type I Girder (Double T Beam Girder) ..................................................................... 18
3.2: Type K Girder (I Beam Girder) ................................................................................. 19
3.3: Bridge Cross Section- Brimfield Bridge .................................................................... 19
3.4: NEXT 32 Beam ......................................................................................................... 20
3.5: Arrangement Plan of the Bridge ................................................................................ 20
3.6: Elevation of the Bridge .............................................................................................. 21
3.7: Abutment on North Side ............................................................................................ 22
3.8: Abutment on South Side ............................................................................................ 22
3.9: Beam Numbering Used in Single Stem Approach .................................................... 24
3.10: Beam Numbering Used in Double Stem Approach ................................................. 24
3.11: Wheel Loading in Exterior Girder for LLDF Calculation - Single Stem Approach 31
3.12: Loading Exterior Girder Double Stem Approach .................................................... 33
3.13( a-d) Comparisons of LLDFs for Span Parameter.41

3.14(a-f) Comparisons of LLDFs for Skew Angle....43

4.1 FE model illustrating NEXT beams ............................................................................ 49
4.2 FEM model illustrating composite deck ..................................................................... 49
4.3 Bridge Section with lane division ............................................................................... 50
4.4 Non Linear Soil Modeling at three ............................................................................. 52

xiv

4.5: FEM Model of Bridge used in FEM method ............................................................. 53
4.6: Axle Placement for Maximum Bending Moment near Mid Span ............................. 55
47: Axle Placement for Maximum Shear Force near Support .......................................... 55
4.8: HS 20 truck ................................................................................................................ 55
4.9: FEM Model For Integral Abutment Bridge (Side Elevation) .................................... 63
5.1(a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs Single Stem Approach ............................................... 73
5.2 (a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs Double Stem Approach ............................................ 74
5.3(a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs FE
SS
Approach ........................................................... 74
5.4(a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs FE
IAB
Approach ......................................................... 745
5.5(a-b) LLDFs for Forces with Single Stem approach (Skew Angle Parameter) ........... 77
5.6(a-b) LLDFs for Forces with Double Stem approach .................................................. 78
5.7(a-b) LLDFs for Forces FE
SS
(Skew Angle Parameter) ............................................... 78
5.8(a-b) LLDFs for Forces FE
IAB
(Skew Angle Parameter)..79

5.9(a-b) LLDF Comparisons for 50 ft Span (0
o
Skew Angle)...82

5.10 (a-b) LLDF Comparison for 66.67 ft Spans (0
o
skew angle) ..................................... 82
5.11(a-b) LLDF Comparison for 80 ft (24.38 m)span (0
o
skew Angle)....83

5.12(a-b) LLDF Comparison for 0
o
Skew angles ............................................................. 84
5.13(a-b) LLDF Comparison for 30
o
Skew angles ........................................................... 84
5.14(a-b): LLDF Comparison for 45
o
Skew angle ............................................................ 85
6.1 Instrumentation Plan ................................................................................................... 90
6.2 Instrumentation in the NEXT Beam ........................................................................... 91
6.3 Strand Location in the NEXT Beam ........................................................................... 94
6.4 NEXT Beam with Center of Prestressing Force ....................................................... 112

xv

6.5: (a-f) Stage Wise Strain Comparison All Six NEXT Beam ................................... 116
6.6 Trapezoidal Stress Variation due to Creep ............................................................... 118
6.7 (a-f): Strain Vs Depth NEXT Beam 1to 6 ................................................................ 121

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an introduction and benefits associated with the use of a newly
developed prestressed concrete beam section for use in short to medium span Bridges.
Because the beam does not fall into typical cross sections included in the AASHTO
LRFD specification (2010), recommendations about its design, specifically the
appropriate live-load distribution factors, need to be provided to engineers. This new
section provides several safety and economic benefits making attractive for use within the
span range for which it was intended.
1.1 NEXT Beam Introduction and Benefits

The northeast extreme tee (NEXT) beam is a prestressed double T-beam recently
developed by a consortium of engineers from all six New England states, New York and
members of the northeast region of prestressed concrete institute (PCI). Its efficient
design minimizes cost and labor in both manufacturing plant and at the job site. It also
eases the construction process and improves the safety for the workers. The lack of
draped (harped) strands is a significant benefit during fabrication. The elimination of
deck forming in the field due to its top flange (Figure 1.1a ) saves significant time during
construction and also provides an instant platform for work. The need of a diaphragm
near the supports or intermediate diaphragms is eliminated as the top flange provides
sufficient lateral stability to the NEXT beam while placing fresh concrete. The cantilever
portion of the NEXT beam (outside the stem Figure 1.1b) provides space in the exterior
girder to erect parapet wall which keeps designers and contractors away from creating
false work for the erection of parapet wall. The NEXT beam (Figure1.1c) can

2

accommodate multiple utilities such as drainage pipe and electrical wire between the
stems and there is no need to create any false work to hide them. The widths of the
NEXT beams can be adjusted readily in fabrication to accommodate roadways which are
tapered in plan. Moreover its flange can be modified readily to accommodate gentle
curve of the highway alignment. The NEXT beam is available for skew angle up to 30
o
.

(a) No Need of Formwork and diaphragm (b) No Need of false work
to cast deck and Parapet

(c) No Need of false arrangement to hide multiple utilities
Figure1.1 Benefits of NEXT Beam
1.2 Motivation of Thesis

The numerous benefits associated with the NEXT beam are going to make it a wide
spread choice for the owners in the future for the spans ranging between 50 ft (15.24 m)
to 80 ft (24.38m). Apart from the consortium states, which developed the NEXT beam

3

other states have also accepted NEXT beam due to its versatility. But the complex shape
of NEXT beam creates confusion among the members of PCI technical committee at the
front of live load analysis based on live load distribution factors (LLDFs). It is very
important to investigate all the concerns pertaining to NEXT beam so that it can be used
at widespread level in the future. To formulate the problem statement it is important to
explain LLDF, its type and formulations mentioned in AASHTO (2010 Bridge design
specification).
1.2.1 LLDF Introduction
The effect of live load in terms of actions (bending moment and shear force) on the girder
of the Bridge is obtained through LLDFs. The LLDFs make live load analysis simpler
and keeps designer of the Bridge away from complex three dimensional live load
analyses. The use of LLDFs is based on equation 1.1 in which F
I
the maximum force at
particular section of the girder of the Bridge, which can be obtained through influence
line method.
F
s
= g*F
I
.. Equation 1.1
Where,
F
s
= the maximum force at the section of concern in the girder in terms of action (bending
moment and shear force).
g = LLDFs.
F
I
= the maximum force at the section of concern obtained by running the live load of
interest on simply supported girder (only).

4

1.2.2 LLDF Types
The LLDFs can be of different types. Based on action it can be for bending moment and
shear force. Based on the division of lane it can be for one lane loaded and two or more
lanes loaded. Based on the arrangement of girders it can be for interior and exterior
girder. So there are eight different types of LLDFs and all of them are considered while
evaluation, verification and conclusion about the problems related to LLDFs of the
NEXT beams. Notation and definition of all the eight types are as follow.
gM
1
i-
= LLDF for bending moment for interior girder for one lane loaded
.
gM
2
i-
= LLDF for bending moment for interior girder for two or more lanes loaded.

gM
1
e-
= LLDF for bending moment for exterior girder for one lane loaded.

gM
2
e-
= LLDF for bending moment for exterior girder for two or more lanes loaded.

gV
1
i-
= LLDF for shear force for interior girder for one lane loaded
.
gV
2
i-
= LLDF for shear force for interior girder for two or more lanes loaded.

gV
1
e-
= LLDF for shear force for exterior girder for one lane loaded
.
gV
2
e-
= LLDF for shear force for exterior girder for two or more lanes loaded.

1.2.3 NEXT Beam Spacings and Problem Statement
Live load distribution factors in AASHTO LRFD require the use of spacing between
girders to determine values that can be used for design of Bridge girders. In NEXT
beams the spacing between girders is not uniquely defined, resulting in uncertainty about
the most appropriate value.
Figure 1.2 is one of the Bridge cross section using NEXT beams as the girder. The
nearest structure to NEXT beam is I type of cross section which is mentioned in table
4.6.2.2.1-1 of AASHTO (2010 Bridge design specification).

5

Figure1.2: NEXT Beam with Varying Spacing Between Stems.

Figure1.3: I type of Girder (Double T Beam Girder)

In the mentioned table of I type girder the spacing between the stem of individual
double T beam is similar to the spacing between the stem of adjacent double T beam.
Moreover the horizontal spacing (between the center of gravity of two adjacent girders) is
also similar to the spacing between the stems. This constant spacing has been used for the
evaluation of LLDF for double T beam.
But if we look at Bridge cross section with NEXT beam as girder in Figure 1.2 the three
spacings are different. S1 is the spacing between the stems of same NEXT beam. S2 is
the spacing between the c.g (horizontal center of gravity of NEXT beam) of two adjacent
NEXT beams, whereas S3 is spacing between stems of two adjacent NEXT beams. The
equations (Equation 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 & 3.5) mentioned in AASHTO (2010 Bridge design
specification) to evaluate LLDFs in interior girders contain only one S, the spacing
between the girder. The equations are also mentioned in Chapter 3 by Equation 3.1, 3.2,
3.4 and 3.5
The three different spacings (S1, S2, S3 Figure 1.2) in NEXT beams create a concern
among members of PCI technical committee, that what spacing should be taken while

6

evaluation of LLDFs. Based on the concern related to spacing, PCI technical committee
has contacted the original authors of the AASHTO Bridge design specification and found
that NEXT beam type of structure with varying spacing (Figure 1.2) was not specifically
investigated through any of the advanced form of analysis during development of code.
In the absence of detailed verification of LLDFs of NEXT beam type the PCI technical
committee evaluated the LLDFs for the Bridge (with NEXT beam as the girder) by single
(Type K Figure 1.4) stem (SST) approach and by double (Type I Figure 1.3) stem
approach (DST) using 2010 AASHTO Bridge design specification. In SST approach each
stem of NEXT beam was considered as K type (Figure 1.4) whereas in DST approach
NEXT beam was considered as I type (Figure 1.3). AASHTO formulation of LLDFs
contains spacing between the girders. The spacing considered in SST approach was
average spacing ([S1+S3]/2) whereas spacing considered for DST approach was S2
(spacing between horizontal center of gravity between NEXT beam).

Figure1.4: K type of Girder (I Beam Girder)

Based on the results PCI technical committee concluded that SST approach is more
conservative for some of the particular case investigated. Further verification for other
sets of parameters (varying spans and varying skew angles) is required so that the method
can be standardized for the LLDFs evaluation of NEXT beams.
The primary objective of the thesis is to ascertain whether the conclusion of PCI
technical committee extends to other sets of parameters or not. The verification has been

7

done in Chapter three in which LLDFs has been evaluated for K type (Figure1.4 SST
approach) of girder as well as for I type (Figure 1.3 DST approach) of girder. In the last
of chapter the evaluated values from both methods have been compared. It is also
important to verify the LLDFs through advance form of analysis. Chapter four is all
about creation of finite Element Model (FEM), evaluation of LLDFs for different set of
parameters and to compare the obtained LLDFs to the LLDFs obtained through latest
AASHTO (2010 Bridge design specification). The comparison will help us to check
whether the variation of LLDFs for different set of parameters obtained through FEM
analysis is in congruence with AASHTO formulations or not. The comparison will also
help us to ascertain the method to get the most conservative value of LLDFs.
The NEXT beam is a prestressed beam and therefore subjected to complex long term
effects of creep, shrinkage and relaxation of strands. It is important to verify whether the
losses taking place in the NEXT beam is in congruence with latest AASHTO (2010
Bridge design specification) or not. Instrumentation of the NEXT beam will give us strain
measurement at different stages. The strain values along the depth of NEXT beam will
help us to ascertain the behavior of NEXT beams in terms of creep and shrinkage.
Strains at different stage will also include the loss component due to long term effect of
creep, shrinkage and relaxation. Future work is based on comparison of strain component
obtained at various stages from analytical calculation and instrumentation outcome. This
comparison between strains will also help us to compare analytically evaluated value of
long term losses with long term losses obtained through instrumentation.
1.3 Brimfield Bridge Project

8

For this research, a prototype Bridge located in Brimfield, Massachusetts was selected in
order to establish typical characteristics of a NEXT beam Bridge. The Brimfield Bridge
is an integral abutment Bridge (IAB) that can be divided in to three main components: -
super structure, sub structure and foundation. The super structure portion has six NEXT
32 beams cast integrally in to the abutments. Abutments are supported on the foundation
which encompasses six HP 10x 57 piles. The Bridge is skew with 30
o
skew angle. Using
the Brimfield Bridge characteristics, three parameters importantly affecting live-load
distribution factors of NEXT beam Bridges were selected and varied systematically. The
three parameters chosen are span length, skew angle and end support conditions. The
effects of these parameters on live-load distribution factors are discussed in Chapter three
to five. Full details of the Brimfield Bridge are provided in Chapter 3.
1.4 Scope of Research

The core scope of the research can be divided in to three parts. Firstly the evaluation of
AASHTO (2010 Bridge design specification) live load distribution factor for the NEXT
beam to verify the outcome of PCI technical committee. Secondly it is important to verify
the AASHTO (2010 Bridge design specification) formulation through some advance
from of analysis in terms of variation of LLDFs with parameters and conservativeness.
Therefore FE models are created to get the LLDFs for the NEXT beam. Details from
instrumentation will be used to verify complex long term behavior of Bridge pertaining to
creep, shrinkage and relaxation. Different types of losses (short term as well as long term)
at the level of the center of prestressing force of strands has been evaluated in terms of
strains from FEM analysis and then compared from the strains obtained from field data.

9

1.4.1 Evaluation of LLDFs from Latest AASHTO Specification
LLDFs for the NEXT beam have been evaluated based on latest AASHTO (2010 Bridge
design specification) for K type (DST approach Figure 1.3) and I type (SST approach
Figure 1.4) of the girder and the obtained value has been compared for different
parametric sets. The evaluation of LLDFs has been done for five of the parametric sets to
study LLDF with varying span and skew angle of the Bridge. The spans considered are
50ft (15.24m), 66.67ft (20.32m) and 80ft (24.38m), and the skew angle considered are 0
o
,
30
o
and 45
o
. Spacing between the girders has not been considered as a parameter, as it is
fixed and marginally more than the flange width of girder. The comparison of LLDFs
obtained from both the methods will help us to ascertain whether the outcome of PCI
technical committee for particular case can be generalized for wide spectrum of
parameters or not. This whole evaluation and comparison has been done in Chapter three.
1.4.2 Evaluation of LLDF from FEM Methods
It is important to verify the LLDFs of NEXT beam with an advanced form of analysis.
LLDFs have been evaluated with the help of FEM analysis in Chapter five. Chapter five
describes the creation of two different type of FEM model with different sets of
parameters and to evaluate the LLDFs. The first model is simply supported model which
is very near to the LLDFs value obtained from the AASHTO (2010 Bridge design
specification). The second model is integral abutment Bridge model which is similar to
the actual Brimfield Bridge. Again the parametric study of LLDFs of the NEXT beam
has been done based on two of the important parameters i.e. span of the Bridge and skew
angle of the Bridge. The spans considered are similar to the previous subsection i.e. 50ft
(15.24m), 66.67ft (20.32m) and 80ft (24.38m) and the skew angle considered are 0
o
, 30
o

10

and 45
o
. Spacing between the girders has not been considered as parameter, as spacing is
fixed as and marginally more than the flange width of girder. Under FEM verification 40
FEMs are generated to evaluated LLDF for the NEXT beam with different parameter.
Out of 40 FEMs,20 FEMs are for simply supported Bridge and 20 FEMs are for IAB
models. The FEM LLDFs are evaluated for three different cases.
Evaluation of LLDFs for simply supported Bridge through AASHTO (2010
Bridge design specification).
Evaluation of LLDFs for simply supported Bridge through linear FE analysis.
Evaluation of LLDFs for Integral Abutment Bridge through non linear FE
analysis in which soil has been modeled as non liner spring.
The obtained values of LLDFs from two of the FEM have been compared in Chapter five
to ascertain the effect of inclusion of sub structure and foundation. In Chapter five
LLDFs obtained from all the four approaches are compared to verify whether the
variation of LLDFs obtained from FEM have the same nature of variation or not. The
comparison will further help us to find out which method will gives us the higher value of
LLDFs for different type of forces (bending moment and shear forces) and for different
type of components (interior girders and exterior girders).
1.4.3 Field Test
The scope of field test is to monitor the Bridge in the span of 3 years through various
strain gauges fixed at numerous locations with the intent of its long term behavior such as
Creep, Shrinkage, deflection and crack width. The strain gauge data will give the strains
at different stages of fabrication, erection and service period of the girder. These strain

11

values will be useful to evaluate creep and shrinkage loss at different time interval.
Through field testing strains were obtained before and after the following stages.
At gage installation.
20 hrs after pouring of concrete.
At the time of detentioning of strands.
At the time of placing of girder on temporary support in casting yard.
After placing the girder over abutment.
After pouring slab concrete.
At the time of live load testing.
At the interval of each three months.
In Chapter six the strain values has been evaluated from the FEM for the actual Bridge at
different stages and then compared with the strains obtained from the field
instrumentation. The strains at different stages and at different height of the girder will
help us to ascertain the behavior of NEXT beams at different stages. Moreover the strain
values obtained from the field data can help us to get the long term loss (creep loss,
shrinkage loss, relaxation loss) in the strands. This loss will be compared with the loss
obtained from analytical formulation of long terms effects from AASHTO (2010 Bridge
design specification). The comparison will help us to verify AASHTO (2010 Bridge
design specification) equations of losses in the NEXT beam.

12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the past many studies had been done in the area of skew Bridge. The major concerns of
the studies were to establish the behavior of skew Bridges, determine LLDF, evaluate the
influence of numerous parameters, and investigate the validity of design assumption and
many more. The studies were done through field and laboratory tests to compare the
outcome through numerical approaches which were based on advance FEM analysis from
available advanced tools. The intent of this section is to put forward all the details of
those investigations and their outcome and further utilize them in the investigation of
LLDF evaluation of NEXT beam bridges for different parametric sets.
2.1 Field Testing

Bishara et al (1993) conducted a field test of a 137feet (41.75m) span four lane composite
steel-concrete Bridge with skew angle of 58.5
o
. The main intent was to investigate the
validity of wheel load distribution factor expressions mentioned in AASHTO (2010
Bridge design specification) from FEM analyses of 36 Bridges of varying geometry. The
Bridge located in Columbus, Ohio, was tested using six dump trucks with known axle
loads. Once the field test was complete, sensitivity studies were conducted using various
parameters such as skew angles, varying spans, number of lane loaded and slab width. It
was found that skew angle has the highest impact on the wheel - load distribution factor.
However, the skew effect is negligible when the skew angle is less than 30
o
. Distribution
factors for interior and exterior girder were derived from field studies and compared to
the FEM modeling and AASHTO (2010 Bridge design specification). For skew angle
greater than 30
o
the LLDF derived from equations were found to be 5-25% higher than

13

the resulting factors from the FEM models. The LLDF for the interior girder were found
to be 30-85% that of the AASHTO specified factor of S/5.5 and 30-70% of the AASHTO
factors for the exterior girders.
Barr et al (1999): In this paper with the help of live load testing reliability of FEM model
of three span continuous Bridge was evaluated. After establishing the reliability the
model, this was used to evaluate LLDFs for flexure for 24 different variations in terms of
diaphragm, their locations, lifts, continuity and skew angles. Based on study it was
concluded that lifts, end diaphragm and skew angles affect the LLDFs whereas the effect
of intermediate diaphragm and continuity was insignificant.
Civjan et al (2007) The recent studies in 2007 were done to appreciate the behavior of
sub structure and foundation of IAB with respect to interaction with soil and to verify
various assumptions used while analysis and construction of the IAB. A three span
Bridge in Orange- Wendell, Mass. (OW) was used as the parametric study to determine
the influence of Bridge design which allows the effects of parameters to be directly
evaluated. The Bridge was extensively instrumented to provide data on the various
movements, pressures, and strains experienced by the Bridge over time. The non-Linear
FEM analysis with the help of GT STRUDL has also been used to check the congruence
of Bridge behavior with respect to output obtained from field data. The parameters used
in the paper were abutment backfill, degree of pile restraint in the top 3.0m of pile and
methods of obtaining abutment soil-spring properties and distribution of backfill
pressure.
Brena et al (2007)- In the similar line Brena et al have used various field data collected in
the span of three years of service of an integral Bridge constructed in Massachusetts for

14

better understanding of lateral movement of abutment and piles corresponds to long terms
loadings such as temperature variation along with soil structure interaction. This paper
was useful in getting the idea of related to effect of backfill and soil restraints on the piles
deformation and forces.
2.2 Laboratory testing and Analytical Modeling

Apart from various field tests laboratory studies in coordination with analytical modeling
have also been performed in the past to better appreciate the behavior of skew Bridges.
The approach was to utilize laboratory testing to validate an analytical model and to
include sensitivity studies to predict the effects of specific parameter.
Newmark et al (1948) Reported on a series of laboratory tests on straight and skewed
Bridges and based on experiments performed it was concluded that the skewed Bridge
with skew angle of 60
o
was critical in terms of shear in comparison of Bridge with
straight configuration. In addition it was concluded that the maximum moments in the
beam decreased for large angle of skew and positive moment at the centre of a panel
increased.
Helba and Kennedy et al (1995, 1996) performed laboratory studies of girder moments
and shear distribution of six simply supported skew composite steel concrete Bridges
with skew angle of 45
o
. After series of experiments and based on various experiments it
was concluded that skew angle is the most critical parameter for the distribution of shear
force and controlling factor for the design of exterior girder.
Yochia Chen (1999): This paper considered different types of Bridges (Steel I girder-
with cross bracings, prestressed concrete box girder with diaphragm, prestressed I girder
with diaphragm) for AASHTO LLDFs and FEM LLDFs. It explains the detailed process

15

to prepare the FEM model in Adina (FEM tool). Based on comparison it concluded that
FEM LLDFs are lesser than the AASHTO LLDFs and incorporating the advanced FEM
tools does not affect the sizing of the girder. The most important finding was that the load
distribution factor is not affected by the type of load considered.
Khaloo et al (2003) : This paper studied the LLDFs for simply supported skew Bridges
for varying parameters such as skew angle (0-60
o
) , varying spacing (1.8m ,2.4m ,2.7m)
between girders, varying span (25m, 30m, 35m) and different arrangement of interior
transverse diaphragm (parallel to support line, perpendicular to girder, diaphragm with
different spacing) . The comparison between AASHTO LLDFs and FEM LLDFs are in
congruence to other evaluations. For flexure, LLDFs was not varying till 30
o
. Beyond 30
o

the LLDFs for flexure reduce and variation between two comparisons was different for
interior and exterior girders. With increased spacing it was observed that LLDFs increase.
For span parameter the flexure LLDFs for interior girder was not sensitive whereas for
exterior girder it was increasing. The transverse diaphragm perpendicular to the girder
was found to be the best arrangement for even distribution of load. For this type of
diaphragm varying spacing between them does not affect the load distribution factor.
Yousif et al (2007): A comprehensive study on LLDFs, dependent parameters (span, slab
thickness, spacing between girders, longitudinal stiffness) and range of applicability of
the mentioned parameters were studied on all the six type of PCI beam I to VI. Under
study LLDFs obtained from AASHTO LRFD (2004) were compared to the LLDFs
obtained from FEM analyses in terms of their ratio. The study was done with twelve
different span between (6m to 73m) , four spacing (1.1m , 2.2m, 2.99m, 4.9m) and four
different slab thicknesses (110mm, 190mm, 240mm, 300mm ) through creation of 886

16

FEM Bridge model. The study was done on the same data base of the Bridge considered
by the Zokie et al (1991). The study concluded the ration for the flexure moment to be
greater as well as less than 1.0 for different types of PCI beam in different range of spans.
Zokaie et al (2007) This paper brief out the development of present LLDF for the
AASHTO (2010 Bridge design specification), which was based on extensive study of
previously adopted S/D formulae along with studies on several hundred actual Bridges
through numerical approach of FEM analysis. This paper was helpful in establishing
various super structure parameters such as span of the Bridge, spacing between the
girder, and skew angle of the Bridge.
Murat et al (2008): This paper was based on investigation of the effect of soil-structure
interaction on different component of IAB. Apart from soil-structure interaction variation
different properties of super structure such as stiffness of girder, spacing between the
girders were also considered. Soil properties were varied with respect to soil stiffness of
foundation. The effect of backfill and its compaction level were not considered. Sub
structure properties of abutment were varied by varying its depth and thickness. The
presence and absence of wing wall were also considered. The results from various 2
dimensional and 3 dimensional FEM model were used for the evaluation of LLDF.
Through the outcome it was concluded that varying properties in soil stiffness, sub
structure and foundation properties has negligible effect on the LLDF on the super
structure portions. However the effect was significant on sub structure and foundation.
Devin K Harris (2009): This paper discuss different type of methodologies (beam line
method, load fraction approach, S over approach, AASHTO LRFD design specification
approach, lever arm approach, in service assessment, FEM approach), used to evaluate

17

the distribution factor. It critically analyzed the strength and shortcomings of different
methods through comparison and validation through FEM. Based on study, comparison
were made on the appropriateness of different type of neutral axis for composite bridge to
get the true response are discussed. The comparison and conclusion also considered the
effect of secondary members and boundary conditions.

18

CHAPTER 3

CALCULATION OF AASHTO LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTOR

Live load distribution factors (LLDFs) are used to calculate the live load bending
moment and shear force on Bridge girders caused by moving loads. LLDFs make not
only live load analysis simpler but also keep designers away from having to develop
complex 3-D models of simple Bridges. This chapter mainly contains the evaluation of
LLDFs for the recently developed North East Extreme Tee (NEXT) beam cross section
using AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2010).
Evaluation of LLDFs in this chapter was conducted using two generic cross sections
included in the AASHTO LRFD (2010): Type i (Figure 3.1) and Type k (Figure 3.2). In
this project, evaluation of LLDFs of a type k cross section is termed the single stem
(SST) approach, whereas evaluation of a type I cross section is termed the double stem
(DST) approach. The objective for evaluating LLDFs using two different approaches is to
verify the recommended procedure proposed by the prestressed concrete institute (PCI)
Bridge technical committee for designers. These recommendations indicated that a SST
approach would result in conservative estimates of moments and shears for most of the
cases typically encountered in practice.

Figure3.1: Type I Girder (Double T Beam Girder)

19

Figure3.2: Type K Girder (I Beam Girder)

The effect of parametric variation such as of varying span and skew on LLDFs are
studied based on actual prototype Bridge model i.e. Brimfield Bridge model which has
span of 66.67ft (20.34m) with 30
o
skew angle. Section 3.1 and 3.2 explains the detail of
Brimfield Bridges super structure, sub structure and foundation details.
3.1 Super Structure Brimfield Bridge

The super structure portion of the Bridge has six NEXT 32 beam (Figure 3.2) as shown in
Figure 3.3. The Bridge has safety curbs on the east side having the width of 1.42ft
(0.43m) and side walk in the west side with width of 4.37ft (1.33m).The spacing between
the girders is 8.08ft (2.44m). The total width of the Bridge is 48.5ft (14.78m). All the
details of mentioned dimensions are shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure3.3: Bridge Cross Section- Brimfield Bridge

The Bridge is spanning from North to South and having the span of 66.67ft (20.34m)
between the centers of gravity of the Abutment. Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 are showing
arrangement plan and elevation of the Bridge with other minute details. The NEXT beam

20

is further topped by 0.67ft (0.20m) thick concrete deck slab which will act compositely
with the NEXT beam.

Figure3.4: NEXT 32 Beam

Figure3.5: Arrangement Plan of the Bridge

21

Figure3.6: Elevation of the Bridge
3.2 Sub Structure and Foundation Brimfield Bridge

The NEXT beam is supported over the abutment (sub structure) in North and South side.
The abutment is reinforced cement concrete (RCC). The abutments thickness, length and
height are 4ft (1.22m), 56.97ft (17.36m) and 10.08ft (3.07m) respectively. The abutment
is attached to the wing wall (sub structure) which provides extra rigidity to the abutment
along with retaining the soils. The wing walls thickness, length and height are 1.623ft
(0.49m), 3.44ft (1.04m) and 10.08ft (3.07m) respectively. The abutment is further
supported on six HP 10x57 piles in both sides as shown in Figure 3.7 (abutment on the
North side) and Figure 3.8 (abutment of South side). Six piles of HP 10x57 sizes are used
under each abutment and are not in line with roads skew, but perpendicular to the
abutment.

22

Figure 3.7: Abutment on North Side

Figure 3.8: Abutment on South Side
3.3 Calculation of LLDFs for NEXT Beam Bridge

LLDFs for typical NEXT beam Bridges were calculated for bending moment and shear
force for interior and exterior girders. These calculations were repeated assuming one
lane loaded and two or more lanes loaded. The critical LLDFs for design is taken as the
maximum of these two lane loading cases. AASHTO equations for LLDFs (Equation 3.1
to 3.1o) are dependent on various parameters. Spacing between the girders and Bridge
span are the most important parameters as seen in these equations. NEXT beam Bridges
can be efficiently used in the range of 50 to 80ft (15.24 to 24.38m), and because of this

23

LLDFs are calculated for three different spans in the following section (50, 66.67, and
80ft [15.24, 20.32, and 24.38m]). For an individual NEXT beam, the width of the flange
is set so spacing between NEXT beams is determined by the flange width. Therefore,
girder spacing was not chosen as a parameter that could vary significantly. Bridge skew
angle was another important parameter chosen for calculation of LLDFs in NEXT beam
Bridges. Three different skew angles 0
o
, 30
o
and 45
o
have been considered for LLDFs
evaluation. A Bridge with span equal to 66.67ft (20.32m) and a skew angle of 30
o

represents a prototype Bridge from which basic structural details were drawn for this
project (Brimfield Bridge). Nine combinations of parameters were studied to assess their
influence on LLDFs. All these parameters were studied on the base model of Brimfield
Bridge which has three portions of super structure sub structure and foundation.
3.4 Calculation of LLDFs - Single Stem Approach (SST-type k)

The single stem approach (SST) was proposed by the PCI Northeast Bridge technical
committee as the conservative approach for design of NEXT beams Bridges. In a type k
cross section approximation (AASHTO 2010), each individual stem is considered as a
girder (Figure 3.2). Calculation of LLDFs must consider the spacing between stems,
which for NEXT beam Bridges is taken as the average ([S1+S3]/2) of the spacing
between stems in the same NEXT beam unit (S1-5ft [1.52m]) and the spacing between
the stems of adjacent NEXT beam units (S3-3ft [0.91m]). The value of LLDFs obtained
in this manner is multiplied by two to get the LLDFs for design of a NEXT beam.
The Brimfield Bridge is made up of six NEXT beams, of which two are exterior girders
and four are interior girders. For the SST approach, the Bridge is considered to contain

24

twelve girders, with stems B2 to B11 are representing interior girders, and B1 and B12
are representing exterior girders (Figure. 3.2).

Figure3.9: Beam Numbering Used in Single Stem Approach

The design LLDF computed for interior girder is the maximum value of LLDFs of the ten
interior girders (B2 to B11), whereas the design LLDF for exterior girder is computed
from the maximum value determined for the two exterior girders (B1 and B12).
3.5 Calculation of LLDFs - Double Stem Approach (DST - type i)

Calculation of LLDFs using the double stem approach (DST) considers the entire NEXT
beam unit as a single beam. The spacing (S2) between the center of gravity of two
adjacent NEXT beams (Figure 3.9) is used for the spacing parameter in the LLDF
equations. The LLDF values thus obtained are used directly in design for individual
NEXT beams. Using again the prototype Bridge discussed earlier (Brimfield Bridge), a
total of six NEXT 32 beams are considered making up the Bridge cross section, of which
two are exterior girders and four are interior girders (Figure 3.10). Under the DST
approach B2 to B5 are interior girders, whereas B1 and B6 are exterior girders.

Figure 3.10: Beam Numbering Used in Double Stem Approach

25

3.6 Calculation of LLDFs for Interior Girders

Calculation of LLDFs for interior girders follows equations in AASHTO LRFD (2010),
with the assumption that girder spacing in those equations is taken as the average spacing
of stems when using the SST approach (type k section), or the spacing between NEXT
beams when using the DST approach (type I section). The equations for LLDFs for
bending moment for interior girders with one lane loaded is given in Equation 3.1, and
for two or more lanes loaded by Equation 3.2.
gM
1
i-
= 0.06+[S/14]
0.4
[S/L]
0.3
[K
g
/(12Lt
s
3
)]
0.1
.. Equation 3.1
gM
2+
i-
= 0.075+[S/9.5]
0.6
[S/L]
0.2
[K
g
/(12Lt
s
3
)]
0.1
.. Equation 3.2
K
g

= n (I+Ae
g
2
)

n = E
Beam
/E
Slab

Where,
gM
1
i-
= LLDF for bending moment for interior girder with one lane loaded.
gM
2+
i-
= LLDF for bending moment for interior girder with two or more lanes loaded.
K
g
= longitudinal stiffness parameter for the composite girder (in
4
)
.

S = respective spacing between the girders (ft) for different approach.
L = span of the Bridge (ft).
t
s
= thickness of deck slab

(in)
.

n = modular ratio between the material of girder and material of deck.
e
g
= the distance between center of gravity of NEXT beam and deck slab (in).
A = Cross sectional area of the girder (in
2
).
I = Moment of inertia of NEXT beam (in
4
).
E
Beam =
Modulus of elasticity of NEXT beam (ksi)
.

26

E
Slab =
Modulus of elasticity of deck slabs (ksi).

To evaluate LLDFs, NEXT beams with different depths (24, 32, and 36in. [610, 813, and
914mm]) were considered typical for use in three different spans being investigated (50,
66.67, and 80ft [15.24, 20.32, and 24.38m]). These depths were determined using the
span ranges of different NEXT beam cross sections from available load tables. The SST
and DST approaches used to evaluate LLDFs result, therefore, in different values of K
g
depending on the cross section used. Table 3.1 lists the different values of K
g
and
relevant parameters used to calculate K
g
.

27

Table3.1: Cross section properties for Use in AASHTO LLDF equations

Details Unit SST DST
NEXT Beam 24F 32F 36F 24F 32F 36F
K
g

in
4
(m
4
)
158,318 (0.06) 310,661 (0.13) 417,440 (0.17) 316,635 (0.13) 621,323 (0.26) 834,881 (0.35)
N 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41
I in
4
(m
4
) 26,481 (0.01) 58,050 (0.024) 80,142 (0.033) 52,962 (0.022) 116,100 (0.048) 160,284 (0.066)
A in
2
(m
2
) 492 (0.317) 583 (0.375) 640 (0.412) 984 (0.633) 1,166 (0.750) 1,280 (0.824)
e.g in (mm) 13.18 (334.77) 16.65 (422.91) 18.33 (465.58) 13.18 (334.77) 16.65 (422.91) 18.33 (465.58)
E
Beam
ksi (Mpa) 5,098 (35176) 5,098 (35176) 5,098 (35176) 5,098 (35176) 5,098 (35176) 5,098 (35176)
E
Slab
ksi (Mpa) 3,605 (24874) 3,605 (24874) 3,605 (24874) 3,605 (24874) 3,605 (24874) 3,605 (24874)

Notes : fc
Beam
=8000 psi, E
Beam
= 57000*sqrt (fc
Beam
)/1000 ksi, fc
Slab
=4000 psi, E
Slab
= 57000*sqrt(fc
Beam
)/1000 ksi

28
To consider the effect of skew angle on LLDFs for bending moment AASHTO LRDF
gives a correction factor (C
M
) as indicated by Equation 3.3. From Equation 3.3 it is clear
that LLDFs for bending moment decrease with increase in skew angle. This result is
consistent with results obtained from FEM analyses as discussed later.
C
M

= 1.25][(K
g
/(12Lt
s
3
)]
0.25
][S/L]
0.5
(tano)
1
.. Equation 3.3
Where,
o = skew angle of the Bridge (degree).
L = span of the Bridge (ft).
t
s
= thickness of deck slab (not including flange of NEXT beam(ft) .
S = spacing between the girders (ft).
LLDFs for the design shear force of interior girders with one lane loaded are calculated
using Equation 3.4, whereas with two or more lanes loaded is given by Equation 3.5.
gV
1
i-
= 0.36+[S/25]

.. Equation 3.4
gV
2+
i-
= 0.2+[S/12] - [S/35]
2
.. Equation 3.5
Where,
gV
1
i-
= LLDF for shear force for interior girder with one lane loaded.
gV
2+
i-
= LLDF for shear force for interior girder with two or more lanes loaded.
S = spacing between the girders (ft).
To consider the effect of skew angle on LLDFs for shear force, the LLDF shear force
correction factor (C
S
) given in Equation. 3.6 is used (AASTHO LRFD 2010). Equation
3.6 clearly shows that LLDFs for shear force increase with an increase in skew angle.
This also matches results obtained from FE analyses as discussed in Chapter 5.
C
S

= 1+ [0.2] (12Lt
s
3
/K
g
)
0.3
(tano)]

.. Equation 3.6

29
3.7 Calculation of LLDFs for Exterior Girders

LLDFs for exterior girder are computed using the lever rule according with AASHTO
LRFD (2010). The lever rule is a method of computing the distribution factors by taking
moments about the first interior girder to get the reaction at the exterior girder, assuming
there is a notional hinge in the Bridge deck directly above the first interior girder. The
design truck is placed as far away from the first interior girder towards the edge of the
Bridge to maximize the reaction computed in the exterior girder. The design truck may be
positioned transversely on the Bridge deck such that center of any wheel is not closer
than 2ft (0.94m) from the edge of the design lane.
The LLDFs for bending moment for exterior girders with one lane loaded are calculated
by the lever rule; for two or more lanes loaded the LLDFs are calculated using Equation
3.7, which is based on the LLDFs for two or more lanes loaded of interior girders.
gM
1
e-
= Lever Rule

gM
2+
e-
= e
M
*gM
2+
i-
.. Equation 3.7
e
M

= 0.77+d
e
/9.1

.. Equation 3.8
Where,
gM
1
e-
= LLDF for bending moment for exterior girder with one lane loaded.
gM
2+
e-
= LLDF for bending moment for exterior girder with two or more lanes loaded.
gM
2+
i-
= LLDF for bending moment for interior girder with two or more lanes loaded.
e
M
= correction factor for distribution, distance between design lane and the center of
gravity of girders (ft).
d
e
= horizontal distance from the centerline of the exterior web of the exterior beam
at the deck level to the interior edge of the curb or traffic barrier (in).

30
The equations for LLDF for shear force for exterior girders with one lane loaded and two
or more lanes loaded are given by lever rule and Equation 3.9 respectively.
gV
1
e-
= Lever Rule

gV
2+
e-
= e
V
* gV
2+
i-

.. Equation 3.9
e
V
= 0.6+d
e
/10

.. Equation 3.10
Where,
e
V
= Correction factor for distribution, distance between design lane and the center of
gravity of girders (ft).
To consider the effect of skew angle of the Bridge these LLDFs are multiplied by the
respective skew angle correction factors as indicated above (Equation 3.3 and 3.6).
3.7.1 Load Position for LLDF Calculation of Exterior Girders - SST Approach
For calculation of exterior girder LLDFs using the SST approach, a small curb was
considered on the edge of the Bridge to allow transverse placement of the design truck as
close to the edge as possible to maximize the reaction of the exterior girder. The width of
the curb considered was 17in. (0.43m). The first wheel of an HS20 truck load was
positioned 25.9in (0.65m) away from the edge of curb (Figure. 3.11). The second wheel
of the design truck does not appear in Figure 3.11 because it falls in the first interior
NEXT beam. The assumed location of the notional hinge above B11. The reaction
obtained in B12 in Figure 3.11 (exterior girder) is multiplied by two to determine the
LLDF for the exterior NEXT beam.

31

Figure3.11: Wheel Loading in Exterior Girder for LLDF Calculation - Single Stem
Approach
For the case of one lane loaded Applying,
EMB = 0

.. Equation 3.11
R
A
Reaction at the center of gravity of the exterior stem = 0.58P
L
F
kips The Lane fraction carried by exterior stem (0.58*P/2) = 0.29P
sM
1
e-
= m*L
F
.. Equation 3.12
gM
1
e-
= gV
1
e-
=2*sM
1
e-
.. Equation 3.13
Where,
sM
1
e-
= LLDF for bending moment of exterior Stem B12
gM
1
e-
= 2*sM
1
e-
= LLDF for bending moment for exterior NEXT beam
gV
1
e-
is LLDFs for shear force for exterior NEXT beam
m is multiple lane presence factor = 1.2 for single lane loaded.
Using Equation 3.11, Equation 3.12, Equation 3.13 we get,
gM
1
e-
= gV
1
e-
= 0.7

32
For the case of two or more lanes loaded Equations 3.7 and 3.8 are used. The eccentricity
of the center of gravity of the exterior stem to the interior edge of the curb is 0.75in
(19.05mm). The factors e
M
and e
V
for bending moment and shear force respectively, are
calculated as:
d
e
= 30.75 in.
e
M
= 0.77+d
e
/9.1 = 1.05ft (0.32m)
e
V
= 0.6+d
e
/10 = 0.88ft (0.27m)
gM
2+
e-
= e
M
*gM
1-
i-
gV
2+
e-
= e
V
*gV
1-
i-
These values are then used in Equations 3.7 and 3.9 to calculate the LLDFs for moment
and shear of exterior girders for two or more lanes loaded. These LLDF values have to be
adjusted by the respective skew angle correction factor from Equation 3.3 and Equation
3.6 for moment and shear, respectively. Results of calculated LLDFs for bending moment
and shear force are presented in tabular form in Section 3.7 (Table 3.3 and 3.5,
respectively).
3.7.2 Load Position for LLDF Calculation of Exterior Girders - DST Approach
For the evaluation of LLDFs of exterior girders using the DST approach, a narrow curb
was again assumed to allow the wheel from the design truck to be placed in a position
that generates a high force on the exterior girder. The width of the curb considered was
17in. (0.43m). The first wheel of an HS20 truck load was placed 26in. (0.65m) from the
edge of the curb. The notional hinge for application of the lever rule was placed at the
centroid of the first interior NEXT beam unit. The reaction in the exterior NEXT beam
unit is determined at the centroid of that unit as illustrated in Figure 3.12. This figure

33
illustrates B6 as a typical exterior girder; the figure also shows the notation used for
calculation of the exterior girder LLDF for a single lane loaded.

Figure3.12: Loading Exterior Girder Double Stem Approach

For the case of one lane loaded Applying,
EMB = 0

.. Equation 3.14
R
A
Reaction at the center of gravity of the exterior NEXT Beam = 1.37 P
L
F
The lane fraction carried by exterior stem (1.37*P/2) = 0.68
gM
1
e-
= gV
1
e-
=m*L
F
.. Equation 3.15
Where,
gM
1
e-
= LLDFs for bending moment for exterior NEXT beam
gV
1
e-
= LLDFs for shear force for exterior NEXT beam
m = multiple lane presence factor = 1.2
Solving Equation 3.17, with m=1.2 we get,
gM
1
e-
= gV
1
e-
= 0.82

34
Similar to the SST for two or more lanes loaded analytical equations mentioned in
AASHTO LRFD specifications (2010) are used. The eccentricity of the center of gravity
of the exterior girder to the interior edge of the narrow sided curb de is 30.75in (0.78m).
Similarly e
M
and e
V
correction factors for bending moment and shear force respectively
have been evaluated in this section. These values have to be multiplied by the respective
LLDFs of the interior girder.
d
e
= 30.75 in
e
M
= 0.77+de/9.1 = 1.05ft (0.32m)
e
V
= 0.6+de/10 = 0.88ft (0.27m)
gM
2+
e-
= e
M
*gM
1-
i-
gV
2+
e-
= e
V
*gV
1-
i-
These LLDFs have to be also multiplied by the respective skew angle correction factors
when applicable. Results of LLDFs for bending moment and shear force are listed in
Section 3.8.
3.8 LLDF Values Computed Using Single Stem Approach (type k)

This approach is assumed to be the conservative approach proposed by the PCI Bridge
technical committee and used currently by designers for design of NEXT beam Bridges.
An 8in (203.2mm). thick deck has been considered acting compositely with the NEXT
beam. Tables 3.2 through 3.5 list LLDFs for bending moment and shear force for
different assumed spans and skew angles. The spans considered are 50, 66.67, and 80ft
[15.24, 20.32, and 24.38m]. The skew angles considered are 0
o
, 30
o
and 45
o
.

35
Table 3.2: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Interior Girder

One lane loaded (gM
1
i -
) Two or more lanes loaded (gM
2+
i -
)
Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 0.66 0.63 0.62 50 (15.24) 0.83 0.80 0.77
66.67 (20.32) 0.63 0.61 0.59 66.67 (20.32) 0.81 0.79 0.76
80 (24.38) 0.61 0.59 0.57 80 (24.38) 0.80 0.77 0.75

Notes : 1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+= for two or more lanes loaded, i- interior girder, e- represent
exterior girder respectively, M = Bending Moment
Table 3.3: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Exterior Girder
One Lane Loaded (gM1e -) Two or more Lanes Loaded (gM2+e -)
Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 0.70 0.68 0.66 50 (15.24) 0.63 0.62 0.60
66.67 (20.32) 0.70 0.68 0.66 66.67 (20.32) 0.63 0.61 0.59
80 (24.38) 0.70 0.68 0.66 80 (24.38) 0.63 0.60 0.58

exterior girder respectively

36
Table 3.4: LLDFs-Shear Force-Interior Girder

gV
1
i -
gV
2+
i -

Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 1.04 1.06 1.07 50 (15.24) 1.05 1.06 1.07
66.67 (20.32) 1.04 1.17 1.27 66.67 (20.32) 1.05 1.18 1.27
80 (24.38) 1.04 1.17 1.26 80 (24.38) 1.05 1.17 1.27

exterior girder respectively

Table 3.5: LLDFs-Shear Force- Exterior Girder

One Lane Loaded (gV
1
i -
) Two or more Lanes Loaded (gV
2+
i -
)
Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 0.70 0.78 0.84 50 (15.24) 0.64 0.71 0.76
66.67 (20.32) 0.70 0.77 0.82 66.67 (20.32) 0.64 0.70 0.75
80 (24.38) 0.70 0.77 0.82 80 (24.38) 0.64 0.70 0.74

exterior girder respectively.

37
3.9 LLDF Values Computed Using Double Stem Approach (type i)

A NEXT beam unit has been considered as the girder in these calculations, including an 8
in. (203.2mm) thick deck acting compositely with the beam. The spacing S between
girders is taken as the horizontal distance between the center of gravity of two adjacent
NEXT beams 8.08ft (2.43m).
Tables 3.6 to 3.9 list LLDFs that have been calculated for bending moment and shear
force for three different span lengths and three different skew angles. As before, the spans
considered are 50, 66.67, and 80ft [15.24, 20.32, and 24.38m] and the skew angles
considered are 0
o
, 30
o
and 45
o
.
Table 3.6: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Interior Girder

One Lane Loaded (gM
1
i -
) Two or more Lanes Loaded (gM
2+
i -
)
Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 0.53 0.49 0.47 50 (15.24)50 0.71 0.67 0.64
66.67 (20.32) 0.50 0.48 0.46 66.67 (20.32) 0.70 0.66 0.63
80 (24.38) 0.49 0.46 0.44 80 (24.38) 0.68 0.65 0.62

exterior girder respectively.

38

Table 3.7: LLDFs-Bending Moment-Exterior Girder

One Lane Loaded (gM
1
e -
) Two or more Lanes Loaded (gM
2+
e -
)
Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 0.82 0.77 0.74 50 (15.24) 0.74 0.70 0.67
66.67 (20.32) 0.82 0.78 0.74 66.67 (20.32) 0.73 0.69 0.65
80 (24.38) 0.82 0.77 0.75 80 (24.38) 0.72 0.68 0.65

Notes :1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+= for two or more lanes loaded, i- interior girder, e- represent exterior
girder respectively.
Table3.8: LLDFs-Shear Force-Interior Girder

One Lane Loaded (gV
1
i -
2+
i -
)
Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 0.68 0.76 0.82 50 (15.24) 0.82 0.91 0.98
66.67 (20.32) 0.68 0.75 0.80 66.67 (20.32) 0.82 0.90 0.96
80 (24.38) 0.68 0.75 0.80 80 (24.38) 0.82 0.90 0.96

girder respectively.

39

Table3.9: LLDFs-Shear Force- Exterior Girder

One Lane Loaded (gV
1
e -
2+
e
)
Span
ft (m)
Skew Span
ft (m)
Skew
0
o
30
o
45
o
0
o
30
o
45
o

50 (15.24) 0.82 0.92 0.98 50 (15.24) 0.70 0.78 0.84
66.67 (20.32) 0.82 0.91 0.97 66.67 (20.32) 0.70 0.77 0.83
80 (24.38) 0.82 0.90 0.96 80 (24.38) 0.70 0.77 0.82

girder respectively
3.10 Comparison between Single and Double Stem Approach

A comparison of the results of LLDFs calculated using the two different assumed cross
sections (SST and DST) described above was conducted to determine which approach
yielded more conservative values. This comparison has been done for the various spans
included in the study (Table 3.10 and 3.11) and the various skew angles (Tables 3.12 and
3.13).
3.10.1 Comparison of Results for Various Spans - 0
o
Skew
Tables 3.10, 3.11 list the LLDFs computed using the SST and DST approaches .From the
results we can conclude that the SST approach gives higher LLDF values for interior
girders and as assumed by the PCI Bridge technical committee. However, the exterior
girder LLDFs computed using the DST approach are higher than those computed with the

40
SST approach. Higher LLDFs would result in higher design live-load moments for
NEXT beams. This comparison is illustrated graphically in Figure 3.13.
Table 3.10: Bending Moment LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
Skew)

Span 50 ft (15.24 m) 66.67 ft (20.32 m) 80 ft (24.38 m)
SST DST SST DST SST DST
gM
1
i -
0.66 0.53 0.63 0.50 0.61 0.49
gM
2+
i -
0.83 0.71 0.81 0.70 0.80 0.68
gM
1
e -
0.70 0.82 0.70 0.82 0.70 0.82
gM
2
e -
0.64 0.74 0.63 0.73 0.62 0.72

girder respectively
Table 3.11: Shear Force LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
skew)
Span 50 ft (15.24 m) 66.67 ft (20.32 m) 80 ft (24.38 m)
gV
1
i -
1.04 0.68 1.04 0.68 1.04 0.68
gV
2+
i -
1.05 0.82 1.05 0.82 1.05 0.82
gV
1
e -
0.70 0.82 0.70 0.82 0.70 0.82
gV
2
e -
0.63 0.70 0.63 0.70 0.63 0.70

Notes:1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+= for two or more lanes loaded, i- interior girder, e- represent exterior
girder respectively

41
0
.
6
3
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
3
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-BENDING MOMENT- 66.67 ft 20.32 m)
SST
SST
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e
-
gM
2
e-
0
.
6
6
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
3
0
.
7
1
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
4
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-BENDING MOMENT-50 ft (15.24 m)
SST
DST
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)

0
.
6
1
0
.
8
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
2
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
2
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-BENDING MOMENT- 80 ft (24.38 m)
SST
DST
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e
-
gM
2
e-
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-SHEAR FROCE-ALL THREE SPAN
SST
DST
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(c) (d)

Figure 3.13( a-d) Comparisons of LLDFs for Span Parameter
3.10.2 Comparison of Results for Various Skew Angles -66.67ft (20.32m)
The LLDF values obtained from using the SST and DST approaches for various skew
angles are compared in Tables 3.12 and 3.13. This comparison is listed for the span 66.67
ft (20.32m). From the results we can conclude that SST approach gives higher value of
LLDFs for the interior girder which is as per the outcome of PCI technical committee. On

42
the contrary for the exterior girder DST is giving higher value for the LLDFs. The
comparisons between the two approaches are mentioned in Figure 3.14.
Table 3.12: Bending Moment LLDFs Different Skew Angles (Span = 66.67 ft (20.32
m))

Skew Angle 0
o
30
o
45
o

gM
1
i -
0.63 0.50 0.61 0.48 0.59 0.46
gM
2+
i -
0.81 0.70 0.79 0.66 0.76 0.63
gM
1
e -
0.70 0.82 0.68 0.78 0.66 0.74
gM
2
e -
0.63 0.73 0.61 0.69 0.59 0.65

Table3.13: Shear Force LLDFs Different Skew Angles (66.67 ft (20.32 m) Span)

Skew Angle 0
o
30
o
45
o

gV
1
i -
1.04 0.68 1.17 0.75 1.27 0.80
gV
2+
i -
1.05 0.82 1.18 0.90 1.27 0.96
gV
1
e -
0.70 0.82 0.77 0.91 0.82 0.97
gV
2
e -
0.63 0.70 0.70 0.77 0.74 0.83

43
0
.
6
3
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
3
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-BENDING MOMENT- 0
o
SST
DST
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e
-
gM
2
e-
0
.
6
1
0
.
7
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
1
0
.
4
8
0
.
6
6
0
.
7
8
0
.
6
9
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-BENDING MOMENT-30
o
SST
DST
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e
-
gM
2
e-

(a)

(b)

0
.
5
9
0
.
7
7
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
9
0
.
4
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
4
0
.
6
5
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-BENDING MOMENT- 45
o
SST
DST
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e
-
gM
2
e-
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-SHEAR FROCE-0
o
SST
DST
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(c) (d)

1
.
1
7
1
.
1
8
0
.
7
7
0
.
7
0
0
.
7
5
0
.
9
0
0
.
9
1
0
.
7
7
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-SHEAR FROCE- 30
o
SST
DST
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
1
.
2
7
1
.
2
7
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
5
0
.
8
0
0
.
9
6
0
.
9
7
0
.
8
3
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
LLDF-SHEAR FROCE- 45
o
SST
DST
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(e) (f)

Figure 3.14(a-f) Comparisons of LLDFs for Skew Angle

44
3.11 Summary
This chapter presents calculation of LLDF values of NEXT beam Bridges having three
different lengths and three different skew angles. The calculations are based on current
AASHTO LRFD equations (2010) assuming two different Bridge cross section types
(Type K and Type I). Based on these calculations and the comparisons presented in
previous sections of this chapter we can conclude the following:
- LLDFs for interior girders determined using the SST approach are higher than
those computed using the DST approach.
- LLDFs for exterior girders are higher when using the DST approach compared
with the SST approach.
- Interior girder LLDFs for bending moment and shear forces are governed by two
or more lanes loaded case for all the parametric sets considered. .
- Exterior girder LLDFs for bending moment and shear force are governed by one
lanes loaded case.
The LLDFs computed in this chapter will be compared with values determined from
detailed FEM models of the Bridges in Chapter four. These comparisons will give
information about the most appropriate cross section type to use in design.

45
CHAPTER 4

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF NEXT BEAM BRIDGES

The objective of this chapter is to provide details of the FEM model used to evaluate live
load moment and shear force distribution factors (LLDFs) for NEXT beam Bridges.
These LLDFs obtained from FEM analysis of typical NEXT beam Bridges are compared
with LLDFs obtained from the AASHTO LRFD equations presented in Chapter 3. The
PCI-NE Bridge Technical Committee recommendations to determining LLDFs of NEXT
beams can then be evaluated in detail.
Three different spans and three different skew angles have been included in this
investigation and verification. The three different spans are 50, 66.67 and 80 ft ([15.24,
20.32 and 24.38m]) and the three different skew angles are 0
o
, 30
o
and 45
o
. These two
sets are considered as parameters that are varied in turn to increase applicability of results
to a wide range of Bridge geometries. Additionally, Bridge models also include integral
abutment configurations even though AASTHO LRFD does not differentiate between
non-integral and integral abutments in LLDF equations. Each model with a given span
and skew angle was analyzed using a simply supported end and integral abutment end
condition. In the past LLDFs for IAB has been explored with straight configuration (0
o

skew angle, (Dicleli 2008).) but not for the varying skew angle.
4.1 Modeling of Bridge

The FEM analysis program used to model the Bridges was SAP 2000 V14.2. Details of
the Bridge model are divided into super structure, sub structure and foundation. The
following sections discuss the modeling aspects for each of these components.

46
4.1.1 Modeling of the Super structure
A base model was built using the characteristics of an actual (Brimfield Bridge) NEXT
beam Bridge, which is considered to by the prototype for this study (Brimfield Bridge).
The configuration of Brimfield Bridge are detailed in section 3.2 and 3.3. After defining
the prototype, parameters were varied (span length, skew angle, end fixity) to investigate
the effect of these changes on LLDFs. The prototype Bridge has a span length of 66.67ft
(20.32m) and a skew angle of 30
o
degrees. The prototype Bridge super structure consists
of six NEXT beams 32 (depth equal to 32in 812.8mm) with an 8 in (203.2mm) concrete
deck slab. Because it is unlikely that 32 in. NEXT beams would be used in the other
spans included in this study, other NEXT beam depths were chosen to closely reflect
what might be used in other spans. Therefore, Bridge models for the 50 and 80ft [15.24
and 20.32m] spans included NEXT 24 and NEXT 36 beams, respectively. The deck
thickness of 8in(203.2mm) remained the same in all the models.
NEXT beams were modeled as 3D frame elements with 6 degrees of freedom per node.
The cross sectional properties were determined using the section designer feature
available in SAP 2000 14.2 to accurately reflect the geometry of the NEXT beams.
The curved chamfer between the web and flange of the NEXT beams could not be easily
captured. The modeled section (Figure 4.1) has section properties that are similar to the
actual one. In Table 4.1 the comparison of section properties for actual sections and
section prepared in section designer are shown. The maximum differences in calculated
and actual section properties are below 2%.

47
Table4.1: Section Property comparison

NEXT 24 Beam Comparison
Section
Property
Unit Section
Designer
Actual Property Deviation
(% Age)
Area in
2
(m
2
) 984(0.63) 966(0.62) 1.83
I
33
in
4
(m
4
) 52962(0.02) 51823(0.02) 2.15
Y
T
in(mm) 9.18(233.17) 9.05(229.87) 1.42
Y
B
in(mm) 14.82(376.42) 14.95(379.73) 0.87
S
T
in
3
(m
3
) 5769 5726(0.09) 0.74
S
B
in
3
(m
3
) 3573.68 3466(0.06) 3.00
Area in
2
(m
2
) 1,182(0.76) 1,166(0.75) 1.35
I
33
in
4
(m
4
) 115,813(0.048) 116,100(0.047) -0.25
Y
T
in(mm) 12.49(317.24) 12.65(321.31) -1.28
Y
B
in(mm) 19.51(495.50) 19.35(491.49) 0.82
S
T
in
3
(m
3
) 9,272(0.152) 9,180(0.15) 0.99
S
B
in
3
(m
3
) 5,936(0.097) 5,998(0.098) -1.04
Area in
2
(m
2
) 1280(0.82) 1287(0.83) 0.54
I
33
in
4
(m
4
) 160284(0.067) 160240(0.07) 0.03
Y
T
in(mm) 14.33(363.98) 14.23(361.44) 0.70
Y
B
in(mm) 21.67(550.42) 21.77(552.96) 0.46

48
S
T
in
3
(m
3
) 11185(0.18) 11261(0.18) 0.47
S
B
in
3
(m
3
) 7396(0.12) 7361(0.012) 0.54

Notes: I
33
=Major moment of Inertia of the NEXT Beam; Y
B
= Depth of bottom fiber of the NEXT beam
from center of gravity of NEXT beam; Y
T
= Depth of top fiber of NEXT beam from center of gravity of
NEXT beam; S
T
= Section modulus for top fiber of NEXT Beam; S
B
=Section modulus for bottom fiber of
NEXT beam.
The deck was modeled using 4-node quadrilateral thin shell elements. Nodes of shell
elements resulting from meshing coincided in space and were connected to nodes in the
NEXT beam frame elements. Each segment along the length of the NEXT beams was
approximately 1.67ft (0.5m) long. The concrete deck element dimensions were defined to
be consistent with nodes on the beam frame elements and to have a width to length ratio
of shell elements of approximately 1.2. This same aspect ratio was maintained for
abutment elements in the case of an IAB model.
The beam and shell elements nodes were initially defined on the same plane. Shell nodes
were then offset to the top of the NEXT beam flange using the insertion point command
in SAP 2000. The insertion point defines the eccentricity between beam element centroid
and the top of the flange where shells should be connected. Because different NEXT
beam depths were used for the three different spans studied 50, 66.67 and 80ft ([15.24,
20.32 and 24.38m]), the eccentricities changed accordingly. Eccentricities of 13.18in.
(1.09m), 16.65in (1.39m) and 18.83in (1.57m) correspond to geometries of NEXT 24,
NEXT 32, and NEXT 36 beams, respectively. Figure 4.1 shows the FEM model with
only NEXT beams shown, and Figure 4.2 shows the addition of the shell elements on the
top flange of the NEXT beams to simulate the actual composite deck action.

49

Figure 4.1 FE model illustrating NEXT beams

Figure 4.2 FEM model illustrating composite deck
4.1.2 Deck width and division of lane

The total width of the Bridge is 48.5ft (14.78m). The width of the sidewalk is 4.37ft
(1.33m) whereas the width of the curb on other side is 1.42ft (0.43m). The roadway
therefore has a clear width of 42.73ft (13.02m). As per the AASHTO (2010 Bridge
design specification) stipulation clear width of Bridge has to be divided with 12ft (3.66
m) as lane width. After division the integral part of the obtained number is used for the
number of lanes. For the actual prototype number of lane is three with 14.24ft (4.34m) as

50
lane width. The obtained number of lane which is as per the AASHTO (2010 Bridge
design specification) stipulation is different from the actual case of two lanes.

Figure 4.3 Bridge Section with lane division
4.1.3 Modeling of Foundation

The sub structure of the prototype Bridge consists of abutments at both ends supported on
steel HP-piles. The sub structure response influences the Bridge response importantly,
particularly for the integral abutment Bridge models. If the NEXT beams were supported
on bearings that allow rotation and translation, it would be sufficient to simply model the
super structure to capture the live-load response of the Bridge. The following sections
describe the modeling techniques used to represent the sub structure of the integral
abutment Bridge models.
4.1.3.1 Modeling of Abutment

The abutment of the prototype Bridge is 4ft (1.21m) thick and 4.74ft (3.07m) thick. The
abutment on each side of the Bridge is supported on six HP 10x57 (metric equivalent)
steel piles. The steel piles weak axis is skew with 30
o
to the road alignment. The
abutment was modeled using four noded thick shell elements with length-to-width ratio

51
very similar to the deck slab (1.2). The depth of the abutment was divided in to six equal
shell elements.
4.1.3.2 Modeling of Piles
Piles were modeled using twenty 2-node 3D-frame elements for a total pile length of 20ft
(6.09m). The piles were pinned at their bases and made continuous with abutment
elements at the top. Pile deformations are largest within the top portion of the pile and
the influence of soil-pile stiffness beyond 15ft (4.57m) was minimal. Therefore the
considered depth of the pile is adequate to consider the soil structure interaction.
B. Modeling of Soil-Structure Interaction

The effect of soil-structure interaction between abutment and backfill soil has been found
to be negligible in calculation of LLDFs (Dicleli 2008). Based on this finding and
because the current study focuses on calculation of LLDFs, the FEM models did not
model the abutment backfill soil stiffness. Soil-structure interaction between piles and
surrounding soil, however, was included because pile restraint affects the degree of fixity
developed under live-load at end of NEXT beams. Nonlinear soil springs were attached
to the end nodes of each frame element used to model the piles as described by Civjan et
al (2008).
Nonlinear modeling of the soil was achieved using force-displacement curves for the soil
at different depths. The length of each pile segment was set at 1ft (0.30m). A force-
displacement curve at each depth was calculated using the hyperbolic tangent method,
discussed in detail in Civjan et al (2008). The equations used are discussed in detail in
Appendix A.

52
Based on the analysis it was observed that link deformation due to live loads are very
less. The forces in the link are 0 and based on that it was concluded that links are not
active in the model. The link deformation are the deformation of the joints attached to the
link.
Figure 4.5 is representing nonlinear P-Y soil resistance modeling at three different depth
of 5 ft (1.52 m), 10 ft (3.04 m) , and 20 ft (6.09 m).
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement (in)
F
o
r
c
e

(
K
i
p
s
)
-667.23
-467.23
-267.23
-67.23
132.77
332.77
532.77
-5.08 -3.08 -1.08 0.92 2.92 4.92
Displacement (cm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Depth 5' Depth 10' Depth 20'

Figure 4.4 Non Linear Soil Modeling at three
Different depths
4.2 Methodology for the Parametric Evaluation of LLDFs using FEM Analysis

LLDFs were evaluated using FEM models for different combinations of parameters as
listed in Table 4.2. Spacing between the girders was not considered as a varying
parameter because widths of NEXT beams vary only within a narrow range mostly by
changing the width of the top flange. This small variation in spacing of beams does not
affect LLDF results significantly. The three spans that were considered are 50, 66.67 and
80 ft [15.24, 20.32 and 24.38m] and the three different skew angles are 0
o
, 30
o
and 45
o
.
The total set parametric variations considered resulted in nine different FEM models. The

53
models having a span of 66.67 ft (20.32m) and a 30
o
skew angle corresponds exactly to
the parameters of the prototype Bridge (Brimfield Bridge). This particular FEM model is
further used in Chapter 6 for evaluation of strain evaluation at different construction
stages and comparison of these strains with analytical modeling and field measurements.
Table 4.2: Different parameteric sets for LLDF Evaluation
Span
ft (m)
Skew
Angle
Span
ft (m)
Skew Angle Span
ft (m)
Skew
Angle
50 (15.24)

0
o

66.67 (20.32)

0
o

80 (24.38)

0
o

30
o
30
o
30
o

45
o
45
o
45
o

NEXT beam LLDFs were calculated near sections producing the maximum
corresponding action. Bending moment LLDFs were determined at mid span, and shear
force LLDFs were determined at a section at a distance equal to the depth of the NEXT
beams from the supports. In all FEM models, six NEXT beams were included assuming a
Bridge width similar to the Brimfield Bridge. These beams are identified as B1 to B6.

Figure 4.5: FEM Model of Bridge used in FEM method

LLDF were calculated including for four possible loading conditions for the Bridge width
selected. According to AASTHO LRFD, up to three design lanes should be considered
for the Bridge width subject of this study. Therefore analyses had to be performed to

54
determine the maximum moment and shear in interior and exterior NEXT beams for live
loading applied to lane 1, lane 2, or lane 3; for live loading applied in pairs of lanes (three
possible combinations); and for live loading applied to all three lanes. A multiple
presence factor, m = 1.2, was used to scale results when live loading was applied to only
single lanes in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2010).
The LLDF for interior NEXT beams was determined using the maximum value of
moment or shear calculated in beam B2 to B5, whereas LLDFs for exterior NEXT beam
was based on results for NEXT beams B1 and B6.
4.2.1 Bending Moment and Shear Force in Line Model

In order to determine LLDFs from 3D-FEM analyses, bending moments and shear forces
are needed from a line model subjected to lane loading. Results from line models are
commonly used in combination with LLDF equations in AASHTO LRFD to estimate
actions in individual girders of Bridge super structures. Only the HS-20 truck portion
(Figure 4.8) of the HL-93 lane loading model in the AASHTO LRFD was used for this
study. Including the lane loading portion or the tandem arrangement was not believed to
influence results significantly. To evaluate LLDFs for bending moment and shear force
mid span and supports are respectively considered.
Figure 4.6 and 4.7 show the axle placement on the line model of NEXT beam with
influence line ordinates for bending moment and shear force.

55

Figure 4.6: Axle Placement for Maximum Bending Moment near Mid Span

Figure 4.7: Axle Placement for Maximum Shear Force near Support

14ft (4.26m) 14ft (4.26m)
Figure4.8: HS 20 truck

56
Table 4.3 lists the live load moment and shear force computed at midspan and near the
support (at depth depth h of NEXT beam from the support) respectively, for different
spans of the line model. Because line models are typically two dimensional
representations of the Bridge structure, these same actions are used to evaluate LLDFs
calculated from Bridge models including skew.
Table 4.3: Maximum Action for Line Model

Span Moment At Mid Span Shear Force near Support
(h)
ft(m) Kip-ft (kN-m) Kips (kN)
50(15.24) 814.17 (1104) 58.56 (260.47)
66.67(20.33) 1241.58 (1646) 62.00(275.77)
80(24.38) 1532.16 (2077) 64.56(287.16)

4.2.2 Evaluation of LLDFs

From FEM analysis we can get the forces (bending moment, shear forces) at critical
locations (mid span for bending moment and at depth d from the support for the shear
forces) for the NEXT beam. The obtained force has to be divided by the force obtained
from influence line method (as per Table 4.3). The obtained value will be the LLDF for
the actions (bending moment and shear force).In this section LLDFs are evaluated for
66.67ft (20.32m) span with 30
o
skew angle. The same steps will be applicable for other
parametric sets.

57
4.2.2.1. LLDFs for Simply Supported Bridge

The first series of models that were considered assumed NEXT beams to be simply
supported on top of the abutments. In these models, the effects of the super structure on
LLDFs were considered negligible so the sub structure was not modeled and pin supports
were provided at the ends of each NEXT beam. Table 4.4 to Table 4.7 list the results of
ratios for bending moment and shear force in interior beams (B2 to B5) and exterior
beams (B1 and B6). These ratios are defined as the ratio of the action (bending moment
and shear force) obtained from FEM analysis to the maximum values of actions (bending
moment and shear force) listed in Table 4.3.These values were obtained through
influence line method. These ratios are listed for one lane loaded and for two or more
lanes loaded. The LLDFs for the interior NEXT beams for one lane loaded will be the
maximum value of the LLDFs of B2 to B5 in Table 4.4 to 4.6. Similarly for the exterior
NEXT beam it will be the maximum value among B1 and B2. For LLDFs of NEXT
beams with two or more lanes loaded Table 4.7 will be used.

58
Table 4.4 : LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Lane 1 Loaded)

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

LLDF
(Particular Case)
FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
Kip-in (kN-m) Kip-in (kN-m) Kips (kN) Kips (kN) Kips (kN)
B1 234 (26.44) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.01 12.0 73.0 (324.7) 62 (275.79) 0.19 1.18
B2 355 (40.11) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.02 2.0 51.0 (26.86) 62 (275.79) 0.08 0.82
B3 1,288 (145.52) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.08 30.0 19.0 (84.51) 62 (275.79) 0.11 0.31
B4 3,503 (395.79) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.24 21.0 29.0 (129.00) 62 (275.79) 0.37 0.47
B5 6,132 (692.82) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.42 39.0 36.0 (160.14) 62 (275.79) 0.82 0.58
B6 9,531(1072.86) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.65 51.0 52.0 (231.31) 62 (275.79) 0.92 0.84

59
Table 4.5: LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Lane 2 Loaded)

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

LLDF
(Particular Case)
FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
B1 958 (108.24) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.06 2.0 38.0 62 (275.79) 0.03 0.61
B2 2,883 (325.74) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.19 17.0 18.0 62 (275.79) 0.27 0.29
B3 5,346 (604.02) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.36 35.0 30.0 62 (275.79) 0.56 0.48
B4 5,773 (652.26) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.39 39.0 37.0 62 (275.79) 0.63 0.60
B5 3,921 14,575 (1646.75) 0.27 46.0 27.0 62 (275.79) 0.74 0.44
B6 1,468 (165.86) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.10 50.0 6.0 62 (275.79) 0.81 0.10

60
Table 4.6: LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Lane 3 Loaded)

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

LLDF
(Particular Case)
FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
B1 7109 (803.17) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.48 2.0 39.0 62 (275.79) 0.03 0.63
B2 6215 (702.24) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.42 17.0 18.0 62 (275.79) 0.27 0.29
B3 4555 (514.59) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.31 35.0 30.0 62 (275.79) 0.56 0.48
B4 1949 (220.20) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.13 39.0 37.0 62 (275.79) 0.63 0.60
B5 610 (68.95) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.042 10.0 24.0 62 (275.79) 0.16 0.39
B6 215 (24.25) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.01 50.0 9.0 62 (275.79) 0.81 0.15

61
Table 4.7: LLDFs-Simply Supported Condition (Two or more Lanes Loaded)

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

LLDF
(Particular Case)
FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
B1 7,127 (805.24) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.49 36 29.0 62 (275.79) 0.58 0.47
B2 7,584 (856.88) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.52 56 46.0 62 (275.79) 0.90 0.74
B3 8,261 (933.37) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.57 55 63.0 62 (275.79) 0.89 1.02
B4 7,960 (899.36) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.55 61 55.0 62 (275.79) 0.98 0.89
B5 8,363 (944.89) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.57 47 51.0 62 (275.79) 0.76 0.82
B6 9,676 (1093.24) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.66 99 52.0 62 (275.79) 1.60 0.84

62
Table 4.8: LLDFs for Bending Moment and Shear Force

gM
1
i -
gM
2+
i -
gM
1
e -
gM
2+
e -

One Lane Two or more Lanes One Lane Two or more Lanes
0.42 0.57 0.65 0.66
gV
1
i -
gV
2+
i -
gV
1
e -
gV
2+
e -

One Lane Two or more Lanes One Lane Two or more Lanes
0.82 1.02 1.18 1.60

4.2.2.2 LLDFs for Integral Abutment Bridge Models

As before, only the models corresponding to a 66.67ft (20.32m) span and a 30
o
skew are
presented in detail here. Results of other Bridge models are presented in Table 4.14 (c to
d). LLDFs for integral abutment Bridge models were calculated assuming that NEXT
beams were connected to the abutment at each end of the Bridge. The FEM model of the
sub structure is shown in Figure 4.9, where the abutment and piles are illustrated. Table
4.9 to 4.12 summarize results of bending moment and shear force ratios used to
determine LLDFs for interior (B2 to B5) and exterior beams (B1 and B6).

63

10 ft (3.04m) 10 ft (3.04 m) 10.5ft(3.2m) 10 ft (3.04m) 10.0 ft (3.04m)
Figure4.9: FEM Model For Integral Abutment Bridge (Side Elevation)

10 ft (3.03 m)
20 ft (6.06 m)

64
Table 4.9: LLDF-IAB (Lane 1 Loaded)

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

LLDF (Particular Case)
FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
B1 1263 (142.70) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.08 3.0 14.0 62 (275.79) 0.05 0.23
B2 1299 (146.77) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.09 3.0 41.0 62 (275.79) 0.05 0.66
B3 1658 (187.33) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.11 7.0 26.0 62 (275.79) 0.11 0.42
B4 2960 (334.43) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.21 18.0 21.0 62 (275.79) 0.29 0.34
B5 4673 (527.98) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.32 34.0 31.0 62 (275.79) 0.55 0.50
B6 6447 (728.41) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.44 42.0 50.0 62 (275.79) 0.68 0.81

65

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
B1 1,507 (170.27) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.10 4 6.0 62 (275.79) 0.06 0.10
B2 2,527 (285.51) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.17 13 21.0 62 (275.79) 0.21 0.34
B3 4,275 (483.01) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.29 32 28.0 62 (275.79) 0.52 0.45
B4 4,624 (522.41) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.32 33 34.0 62 (275.79) 0.53 0.55
B5 3,254 (367.65) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.22 24 21.0 62 (275.79) 0.39 0.34
B6 1,769 (199.87) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.12 36 4.0 62 (275.79) 0.58 0.06

66

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
B1 5,012 (566.28) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.34 13 27.0 62 (275.79) 0.21 0.44
B2 4,855 (548.54) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.33 32 37.0 62 (275.79) 0.52 0.60
B3 3,720 (420.30) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.25 33 27.0 62 (275.79) 0.53 0.44
B4 1,980 (223.71) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.14 23 8.0 62 (275.79) 0.37 0.13
B5 1,366 154.34) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.09 37 2.0 62 (275.79) 0.60 0.03
B6 1,261 (142.47) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.08 1 2.0 62 (275.79) 0.02 0.03

67

Table 4.12: LLDF- IAB (Two or more than Lanes Loaded)

Beam
Number
Bending Moment

LLDF
(Particular Case)
Shear Force

FEA M
max
Acute Obtuse V
max
Acute Obtuse
B1 5500 (621.42) 14,575 (1646.7) 0.37 33.0 25.0 62 (275.79) 0.53 0.40
B2 6148 (694.63) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.42 43.0 57.0 62 (275.79) 0.69 0.92
B3 6828 (771.46) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.47 51.0 62.0 62 (275.79) 0.82 1.00
B4 6757 (763.44) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.46 58.0 53.0 62 (275.79) 0.94 0.85
B5 6617 (747.62) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.45 50.0 46.0 62 (275.79) 0.81 0.74
B6 6831 (771.80) 14,575 (1646.75) 0.47 38.0 46.0 62 (275.79) 0.61 0.74

68
Table 4.13 lists the LLDFs for IAB case with span 66.67 ft (20.32m) and skew angle 30
o
,
obtained from tables 4.8-4.11 as the maximum value of all ratios for a specific category.
Table 4.13: LLDF for Moment and Shear Force

gM
1
i -
gM
2+
i -
gM
1
e -
gM
2+
e -

One lane Two or more lanes One lane Two or more lanes
0.33 0.47 0.44 0.47
gV
1
i -
gV
2+
i -
gV
1
e -
gV
2+
e -

One lane Two or more lanes One lane Two or more lanes
0.66 0.81 1.00 0.74

1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+= for two or more lanes loaded, i- interior girder, e- represent exterior girder
respectively, M=Bending Moment, V=Shear Force.
From the Table 4.8 (LLDFs for simply supported Bridge) and Table 4.13 (LLDFs for
IAB) we conclude that the LLDF for the SS case is conservative. This seems to be
plausible as in IAB modeling, sub structure and foundation components are added with
their stiffness due to which it restrained rotation in the beam and alleviate mid span-
moments. The reduction in forces in the girder will further results in reduction of LLDFs
of the girder.
4.3 Summary

Section 4.2.2 explains the evaluation of LLDFs for actual Brimfield Bridge prototype
with span 66.67ft (20.32m). For other sets of parameter the LLDFs are evaluated in the
similar manner. Table 4.14 (a-d) lists the LLDFs for span and skew parameters.

69
Table4.14(a-d): LLDFs Obtained From FEM

(a) LLDFs-Bending Moment Span Parameter
Set of Parameter 50ft (15.24m)
Skew 0
o

66.67 ft (20.32m) -
Skew 0
o

80 ft (24.38m) -
Skew 0
o

LLDFs FE
SS
FE
IAB
FE
SS
FE
IAB
FE
SS
FE
IAB

gM
1
i -
0.51 0.31 0.42 0.33 0.40 0.33
gM
2+
i -
0.58 0.46 0.57 0.47 0.55 0.49
gM
1
e -
0.64 0.41 0.62 0.43 0.60 0.44
gM
2
e -
0.64 0.44 0.63 0.46 0.62 0.48

(b)LLDFs-Shear Force-Span Parameter
Set of Parameter 50ft (15.24m)Skew
Skew 0
o

66.67 ft (20.32m)
Skew 0
o

80ft (24.38m)
Skew 0
o

LLDFs FE
SS
FE
IAB
FE
SS
FE
IAB
FE
SS
FE
IAB

gV
1
i -
0.67 0.63 0.71 0.68 0.60 0.65
gV
2+
i -
0.72 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.73 0.79
gV
1
e -
0.75 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.79 0.74
gV
2
e -
0.75 0.75 0.82 0.85 0.79 0.74

70
(c) LLDFs-Bending Moment-Skew Parameter
Set of Parameter 66.67 ft (20.32m) -
Skew 0
o

66.67 ft(20.32m) -
Skew 30
o

66.67 ft (20.32m) -
Skew 45
o

LLDFs FE
SS
FE
IAB
FE
SS
FE
IAB
FE
SS
FE
IAB

gM
1
i -
0.42 0.33 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.31
gM
2+
i -
0.57 0.47 0.57 0.47 0.52 0.46
gM
1
e -
0.62 0.44 0.65 0.44 0.64 0.42
gM
2
e -
0.63 0.47 0.66 0.47 0.65 0.44

(d) LLDFs-Shear Force- Skew Parameter
Set of Parameter 66.67 ft (20.32m)
Skew 0
o

66.67 ft (20.32m)
Skew 30
o

66.67 ft (20.32m)
Skew 45
o

LLDFs FE
SS

FE
IAB

FE
SS
FE
IAB

FE
SS

FE
IAB

gV
1
i -
0.71 0.68 0.82 0.66 1.21 0.68
gV
2+
i -
0.79 0.82 1.02 1.00 1.32 0.89
gV
1
e -
0.82 0.85 1.18 0.81 2.73 1.10
gV
2
e -
0.82 0.85 1.60 0.74 2.76 1.48

Notes 1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+= for two or more lanes loaded, i- interior girder, e- represent exterior
girder respectively, V=Shear Force.

71
CHAPTER 5

PARAMETRIC STUDIES IN EVALUATION OF LLDFs
This chapter shows comparisons of LLDFs computed using the techniques described in
Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. LLDFs calculated using AASHTO LRFD equations (Chapter 3)
from both the single stem (SST) approach and double stem (DST) approach are compared
with LLDFs determined from FEM analyses assuming simply supported and integral
abutment support conditions. The variation of LLDFs depending on the assumed spacing
(SST and DST) following the AASHTO LRFD specifications (2010) is first presented.
This variation gives important information on which of the two methods yields more
conservative results. Furthermore, the qualitative variation observed in LLDFs as other
parameters are varied (skew, length) when using the AASHTO LRFD equations should
be similar to the variation found when using FEM analyses. In section 5.2 LLDFs for
bending moment and shear force in interior girders and exterior girders under single and
multiple lanes loaded are discussed so that recommendations can be given on the
assumptions to use for LLDFs of NEXT beam Bridges. Based on comparison the PCI-NE
Bridge Technical Committee recommendations to determining LLDFs of NEXT beams
can also be evaluated in detail.
5.1 Comparison of AASHTO LLDFs and FEM Analyses LLDFs
This section compares LLDFs obtained from AASHTO LRFD (2010) with those
obtained using the detailed FEM analyses described in Chapter 4. When comparing
LLDFs calculated using different methods, it was considered important that the trends
observed in LLDFs obtained through FEM analyses have similarities to LLDFs obtained

72
through AASHTO LRFD (2010). To compare trends, LLDFs obtained in chapter three
and four are compared when span and skew angle were varied parametrically.
5.1.1 Trends Observed for Span Variations
The trends of LLDFs as a function of span are summarized in Table5.1 and 5.2 for
bending moment and shear force, respectively. Three different spans were chosen in this
study (50, 66.67 and 80 ft [15.24, 20.32 and 24.38m]). LLDFs were obtained using four
different approaches: (1) AASHTO LRFD equations single stem assumption (SST); (2)
AASHTO LRFD equations double stem assumption (DST); (3) FE analysis simple
support assumption (FE
SS
); and (4) FEM analysis integral abutment assumption
(FE
IAB
). Because only span was varied parametrically, skew was kept constant at 0
o
in all
these comparisons. The same information is presented graphically in Figures 5.1 through
5.4.
Table 5.1: Bending Moment LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
Skew)

Span
50 ft (15.24 m) 66.67 ft (20.32 m) 80 ft ( 24.38 m)
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB

gM
1
i -

0.66 0.53 0.51 0.31 0.63 0.50 0.42 0.33 0.61 0.49 0.40 0.33
gM
2+
i -

0.83 0.71 0.58 0.46 0.81 0.70 0.57 0.47 0.80 0.68 0.55 0.49
gM
1
e -

0.70 0.82 0.64 0.41 0.70 0.82 0.62 0.43 0.70 0.82 0.60 0.44
gM
2
e -

0.64 0.74 0.64 0.44 0.63 0.73 0.63 0.46 0.62 0.72 0.62 0.48

Notes: SST-Single Stem Approach, DST- Double Stem Approach, FE
SS
Simply Supported Approach,
FE
IAB
IAB Integral Abutment Approach, 1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+= for two or more lanes loaded, i-
interior girder, e- represent exterior girder respectively, M=Bending Moment.

73
Table 5.2: Shear Force LLDFs - Different Spans, (0
o
skew)

Span
50 ft (15.24 m) 66.67 ft (20.32 m) 80 ft ( 24.38 m)
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB

gV
1
i -

1.04 0.68 0.67 0.63 1.04 0.68 0.71 0.68 1.04 0.68 0.60 0.65
gV
2+
i

1.05 0.82 0.72 0.75 1.05 0.82 0.79 0.82 1.05 0.82 0.73 0.79
gV
1
e -

0.70 0.82 0.75 0.79 0.70 0.82 0.82 0.85 0.70 0.82 0.79 0.74
gV
2
e -

0.63 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.70 0.82 0.85 0.63 0.70 0.79 0.74

Notes: SST-Single Stem Approach, DST- Double Stem Approach, SS- Simply Supported Approach, IAB
Integral Abutment Approach, 1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+= for two or more lanes loaded, i- interior
girder, e- represent exterior girder respectively, M=Bending Moment.

1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-AASHTO- SST
50'
66.67'
80'
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
6
6
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
3
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
1
0
.
8
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
2
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-AASHTO-SST
50'
66.67'
80'
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.1(a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs Single Stem Approach

74
0
.
5
3
0
.
7
1
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
4
0
.
5
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
3
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
2
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-AASHTO-DST
50'
66.67'
80'
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-AASHTO-DST
50'
66.67'
80'
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.2(a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs Double Stem Approach

0
.
5
1 0
.
5
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
4
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
0
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
0
0
.
6
2
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-FEM-SS
50'
66.67'
80'
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-
0
.
6
7
0
.
7
2
0
.
7
5
0
.
7
5
0
.
7
1
0
.
7
9
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
6
0
0
.
7
3
0
.
7
9
0
.
7
9
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-FEM-SS
50'
66.67'
80'
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(a) (b)

Figure 5.3(a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs FE
SS
Approach

75
0
.
3
1
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
1
0
.
4
4
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
6
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
9
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
8
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-FEM-IAB
50'
66.67'
80'
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
5
0
.
7
9
0
.
7
5
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
5
0
.
8
5
0
.
6
5
0
.
7
9
0
.
7
4
0
.
7
4
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-FEM-IAB
50'
66.67'
80'
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.4(a-b) Comparisons of LLDFs FE
IAB
Approach

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show a comparison of LLDFs calculated using the SST and DST
approaches, respectively. We can see that LLDFs for bending moment generally decrease
with span, except for the case of exterior girders for a single lane loaded. LLDFs for
shear force remain constant in all cases. If we compare the moment LLDFs with the
results obtained from FEM analysis assuming simply supported end conditions
(Figure5.3(a)), we can see that the LLDF trend is also decreasing with span as observed
from AASHTO LRFD (2010). However, the results from FEM analyses assuming IAB
support conditions (Figure 5.4a) show a different trend from results using AASHTO
LRFD. Comparing the shear force LLDFs from FEM analyses in Figures 5.3b and 5.4b
with AASTHO LRFD demonstrate that LLDFs are not constant with span as obtained
from AASHTO LRFD equations.
5.1.2 Trends Observed for Skew Angle Variations
The effect of variation of skew angle on LLDFs in NEXT beam Bridges is presented in
this section for a 66.67 ft (20.32m) span. This span was chosen as the middle range of
spans considered to illustrate trends in variation of LLDFs. The three skew angles

76
considered are 0
o
, 30
o
and 45
o
. Tables 5.3 and 5.4summarize LLDFs calculated by the
different methods described in Section 5.1.1. Figures 5.5 through 5.8 illustrate
comparison of the LLDF results graphically for bending moment and shear force.

Table 5.3: Bending Moment LLDFs Different Skew Angles (Span = 66.67 ft (20.32 m))

Skew
Angle
0
o
30
o
45
o

SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB

gM
1
i -

0.63 0.50 0.42 0.33 0.61 0.48 0.42 0.33 0.59 0.46 0.39 0.31
gM
2+
i -

0.81 0.70 0.57 0.47 0.79 0.66 0.57 0.47 0.77 0.63 0.52 0.46
gM
1
e -

0.70 0.82 0.62 0.43 0.68 0.78 0.65 0.44 0.66 0.74 0.64 0.42
gM
2
e -

0.63 0.73 0.63 0.46 0.61 0.69 0.66 0.47 0.59 0.65 0.65 0.44

Integral Abutment Approach, 1=one lane loaded whereas, 2+- for two or more lanes loaded, i- interior
girder, e- represent exterior girder respectively, M- Bending Moment

77
Table5.4: Shear Force LLDFs Different Skew Angles (66.67 ft (20.32 m) Span)
Skew
Angle
0
o
30
o
45
o

SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB
SST DST FE
SS
FE
IAB

gV
1
i -
1.04 0.68 0.71 0.68 1.17 0.75 0.82 0.66 1.27 0.80 1.21 0.68
gV
2+
i -
1.05 0.82 0.79 0.82 1.18 0.90 1.02 1.00 1.27 0.96 1.32 0.89
gV
1
e -
0.70 0.82 0.82 0.85 0.77 0.91 1.18 0.81 0.82 0.97 2.73 1.10
gV
2
e -
0.63 0.70 0.82 0.85 0.70 0.77 1.60 0.74 0.75 0.83 2.76 1.48

Integral Abutment Approach, 1=one lane loaded, 2+= two or more lanes loaded, i- interior girder, e-
exterior girder respectively, V Shear Forces.

0
.
6
3
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
1
0
.
7
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
9
0
.
7
7
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
9
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-AASHTO-SST
0 Skew
30 Skew
45 Skew
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
1
.
1
7
1
.
1
8
0
.
7
7
0
.
7
0
1
.
2
7
1
.
2
7
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
5
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-AASHTO-SST
0 skew
30 Skew
45 Skew
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure5.5(a-b) LLDFs for Forces with Single Stem approach (Skew Angle Parameter)

78
0
.
6
8 0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0
.
7
5
0
.
9
0
0
.
9
1
0
.
7
7
0
.
8
0
0
.
9
6
0
.
9
7
0
.
8
3
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-AASHTO-DST
0 Deg
30 Deg
45 Deg
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
5
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
3
0
.
4
8
0
.
6
6
0
.
7
8
0
.
6
9
0
.
4
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
4
0
.
6
5
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-AASHTO-DST
0 Deg
30 Deg
45 Deg
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.6(a-b) LLDFs for Forces with Double Stem approach
(Skew Angle Parameter)
0
.
7
1
0
.
7
9
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
1
.
0
2
1
.
1
8
1
.
6
0
1
.
2
1
1
.
3
2
2
.
7
3
2
.
7
6
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-FEM-SS
0 Deg
30 Deg
45 Deg
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
7 0
.
6
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
6
0
.
3
9
0
.
5
2
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
5
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-FEM-SS
0 Deg
30 Deg
45 Deg
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.7(a-b) LLDFs for Forces FE
SS

79
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
6
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
7
0
.
3
1
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
4
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment-FEM-IAB
0 Deg
30 Deg
45 Deg
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-
0
.
6
8 0
.
8
2
0
.
8
5
0
.
8
5
0
.
6
6
1
.
0
0
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
4
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
9
1
.
1
0
1
.
4
8
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear-FEM-IAB
0 Deg
30 Deg
45 Deg
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.8(a-b) LLDFs for Forces FE
IAB

Bending moment LLDFs obtained from AASHTO LRFD decrease with increasing skew
angle, whereas shear force LLDFs increase with increasing skew angle. These general
trends are not observed in the case of FEM analyses. Bending moment LLDFs obtained
from FEM analyses assuming simply supported conditions remain constant for interior
beams for the first two skew angles and then decrease for the highest skew angle.
Moment LLDFs in exterior beams increase with increasing skew angle. When IAB
support conditions are assumed, a clear trend is not apparent (higher skews cause an
increase in some cases and a decrease in others). The trends in shear force LLDFs
computed using FEM analyses generally increase with increasing skew angle. The
increase for the largest skew angle, however, is much higher than the increase obtained
when using AASHTO LRFD equations.
The reasons behind high LLDFs for shear force of exterior girder with high skew angles
are attributed to the type of member considered to model the NEXT beams. The NEXT
beam has been modeled as 3 dimensional frame elements at the center of gravity of the
NEXT beams. The selection of this type of resulted in higher cantilever zone in

80
comparison to the actual case. This high cantilever cause higher torsion and higher
torsion value cause high shear force in the exterior beam with high skew angle. The other
reason is attributed to the difference in the behavior in terms of conversion of torsion
force in to the shear force. The two stems of the NEXT beam will have shear forces in
opposite direction due to torsion but in model the torsion results in shear force in only
one direction. This phenomenon keeps higher shear force in the exterior NEXT beam for
the shear force.
5.2 Comparison of LLDFs Obtained Through Different Methods
LLDFs obtained from the four different methods are further compared in this section to
ascertain the one resulting in the most conservative estimates of moment and shear force.
It was mentioned in Chapter 3 that the SST approach resulted in more conservative LLDF
values for interior girders, but that the DST approach gave higher LLDF values for
exterior girders. The results obtained FEM analyses assuming simply supported
conditions (FE
SS
approach) and integral abutment support conditions (FE
IAB
approach)
are also discussed in this section. The LLDFs from the four different approaches are
summarized in Tables 5.1 to 5.4, and graphically presented in Figures 5.9 to 5.12. The
comparisons are presented for the three different spans and skew angles indicated
previously.
5.2.1 Comparison of LLDFs for Parametric Variations in Span
LLDFs are compared for the three spans of 50 ft (15.24m), 66.67 ft (20.32m), and 80 ft
(24.38m) and a 0
o
skew angles. Results listed in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, and bar comparisons
in Figures 5.9 to 5.11 show that LLDFs for bending moment obtained from FEM
analyses are smaller in comparison with values obtained from either SST or DST

81
approaches, and therefore not govern the values of LLDFs. Conversely, shear force
LLDFs for interior girders based on AASHTO LRFD are higher than values obtained
from FEM analyses. Shear force LLDFs of exterior girders are governed by results from
FEM analyses, since much higher values than AASHTO LRFD equations are obtained.
These results may be attributable to high torsional stiffness of NEXT beam Bridges, not
accounted by the AASHTO equations used for the two cross section types selected in this
study (Type k and i).
Also based on comparison of LLDFs from two FEM analyses, we can conclude that
bending moment LLDFs obtained from FE
SS
model is conservative compared with values
obtained from FE
IAB
model. The results are consistent with anticipated values as inclusion
of the sub structure and foundation increase end stiffness in the IAB model which
resulted in a reduction of midspan bending moment in the beams. For shear force the
LLDF values obtained from FE
SS
model and FE
IAB
model are marginally different. Shear
force is not affected as importantly as moment when end restraint is provided by the sub
structure and foundation. The comparisons between LLDFs obtained from two FEM
analyses are the shown in Figure 5.9 to 5.11.

82
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
7
0
.
7
2
0
.
7
5
0
.
7
5
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
5
0
.
7
9
0
.
7
5
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear 50 ft (15.24 m)
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
6
6
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
3
0
.
7
1
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
4
0
.
5
1 0
.
5
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
4
0
.
3
1
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
1
0
.
4
4
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment 50 ft (15.24 m)
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.9(a-b) LLDF Comparisons for 50 ft Span (0
o
Skew Angle)

1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0
.
7
1
0
.
7
9
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
5
0
.
8
5
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear 66.67 ft (20.32 m)
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS-FEM
IAB-FEM
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
6
3
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
3
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
6
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment 66.67 ft (20.32 m)
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.10 (a-b) LLDF Comparison for 66.67 ft Spans (0
o
skew angle)

83
1
.
2
7
0
.
8
0
1
.
2
1
0
.
6
8
1
.
2
7
0
.
9
6
1
.
3
2
0
.
8
9
0
.
8
2
0
.
9
7
2
.
7
3
1
.
1
0
0
.
7
5
0
.
8
3
2
.
7
6
1
.
4
8
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear 80 ft (24.38 m)
SST-AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
6
1
0
.
8
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
2
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
2
0
.
4
0
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
0
0
.
6
2
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
9
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
8
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment 80 ft (24.38 m)
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.11(a-b) LLDF Comparison for 80 ft (24.38 m)span (0
o
skew Angle)

5.2.2 Comparison of LLDFs for Parametric Variations in Skew Angle
The three different skew angles of 0
o
, 30
o
and 45
o
degrees in combination with a 66.67 ft
(20.32m) span are considered to investigate the effects of skew on LLDFs for NEXT
beams. Based on results listed in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, and Figures 5.12 to 5.14, we can
observed that bending moment LLDFs obtained from FEM analyses are smaller
compared with values obtained from SST and DST approaches. In this case the
AASHTO LRFD equations give conservative results for both cross section types
considered. Shear force LLDFs for interior girders computed from AASHTO LRFD are
also higher than values obtained from FEM analyses. On the other hand, the computed
shear force LLDFs for exterior girders using FEM analyses are higher than LLDFs in
AASTHO LRFD equations. Very high shear force LLDF values were obtained in the
FEM analyses, particularly at high skews, a result that may be caused by the high
torsional stiffness of NEXT beams in comparison with the two cross sections assumed
when using AASHTO LRFD equations.
From the comparisons above we can conclude that bending moment LLDFs obtained
from FE
SS
model are more conservative than values obtained from an FE
IAB
model

84
because the end restraint provided by including the sub structure and foundation. For
shear force the variation in LLDFs is higher for higher skew angles (30
o
and 45
o
) . This
large variation in LLDFs for shear force can be attributed to the large torsion in the girder
in the obtuse angle side. The comparisons between the LLDF are shown in Figure 5.12
to 5.14.
0
.
6
3
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
3
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
6
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment Skew 0
o
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
5
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
7
0
0
.
7
1
0
.
7
9
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
6
8
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
5
0
.
8
5
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear Skew 0
o
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.12(a-b) LLDF Comparison for 0o Skew angles

1
.
1
7
1
.
1
8
0
.
7
7
0
.
7
0
0
.
7
5 0
.
9
0
0
.
9
1
0
.
7
7
0
.
8
2
1
.
0
2 1
.
1
8
1
.
6
0
0
.
6
6
1
.
0
0
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
4
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear Skew 30
o
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS-FEM
IAB-FEM
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
6
1
0
.
7
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
1
0
.
4
8
0
.
6
6
0
.
7
8
0
.
6
9
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
7 0
.
6
5
0
.
6
6
0
.
3
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
7
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Moment Skew 30
o
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 513(a-b) LLDF Comparison for 30
o
Skew angle

85
1
.
2
7
0
.
8
0
1
.
2
1
0
.
6
8
1
.
2
7
0
.
9
6
1
.
3
2
0
.
8
9
0
.
8
2
0
.
9
7
2
.
7
3
1
.
1
0
0
.
7
5
0
.
8
3
2
.
7
6
1
.
4
8
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Shear Skew 45
o
SST-AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gV
1
i-
gV
2
i-
gV
1
e-
gV
2
e-
0
.
5
9
0
.
7
7
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
9
0
.
4
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
4
0
.
6
5
0
.
3
9
0
.
5
2
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
5
0
.
3
1
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
4
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1 2 3 4
L
L
D
F
Momet-Skew 45
o
SST AASHTO
DST AASHTO
SS FEM
IAB FEM
gM
1
i-
gM
2
i-
gM
1
e-
gM
2
e-

(a) (b)
Figure 5.14(a-b): LLDF Comparison for 45
o
Skew angle
5.3 Summary
The results presented in this chapter can be summarized as follows:
Trend comparison span parameter
- The trend in LLDF values for bending moment (with varying span) obtained from
FE
SS
approach is similar when compared with the trend observed from AASHTO
LRFD (2010).
- The trends in the LLDF values for bending moment (with varying span) obtained
from FE
IAB
approach are different when compared with trends obtained from
AASHTO LRFD (2010), but AASHTO values are yielding higher values.
- The trends in LLDFs for shear force (with varying span) obtained using FE
SS
and
FE
IAB
assumptions do not follow the trend found when applying AASHTO LRFD
equations with varying span as found from latest AASHTO LRFD.
Trend comparison skew parameter
- The trends in LLDFs for bending moment (with varying skew angle) obtained
from FE
SS
and FE
IAB
approaches are similar for interior girders but not for
exterior girders when compared with trends in AASHTO LRFD equations.

86
- The trend LLDFs for shear force (with varying skew angle) obtained from the
FE
SS
approach is similar to trends in AASHTO LRFD equations.
- When using the FE
IAB
approach, the trend in LLDFs is different from the trend
observed in AASHTO LRFD equations.
Comparison for LLDFs with different end condition
- LLDFs for bending moment obtained from SS model are higher than IAB model.
This trend is observed for both parameters i.e. span and skew angle of the Bridge.
The trend is as per the expectation due to added stiffness of sub structure and
foundations
- LLDFs for shear force for varying span (50 ft (15.24 m), 66.67 ft (20.34 m), 80 ft
(24.384 m) with 0
o
skew angle obtained from SS model vary marginally with
respect to IAB model. This result is as per the expectation as inclusion of sub
structure and foundation to the model does not vary the shear force in the girder at
different locations.
- LLDFs for shear force for varying skew angle (0
o
, 30
o
, 45
o
) with 66.67 ft span
obtained from SS model attain much higher value than IAB model. The probable
reason behind this could be the higher torsion force in the NEXT beam with
simply supported case.
- Interior girder LLDFs for bending moment and shear forces are typically
governed by the case corresponding to two or more lanes loaded case.
- Exterior girder LLDFs for bending moment and shear force are governed by one
lane loaded case.

87
- In most cases LLDFs values are governed by AASHTO LRFD equations. The
shear LLDFs for exterior girders is governed by FEM analyses.

88
CHAPTER 6

STRAIN EVALAUATION AND VERIFICATION AT DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTUION STAGES
Under the Brimfield Bridge instrumentation programme strain values are evaluated in the
NEXT beam at different stages. The field strain values encompass the strain variation due
to the creep and shrinkage loss in the strands. In this section the strain variations from
field data are compared with the corresponding strains obtained analytically. In the
analytical evaluation of strains creep and shrinkage loss as per AASHTO standards are
evaluated. The nearness in the values of the strains will validate the creep and shrinkage
loss equations in AASHTO standards for the newly adopted NEXT beams. The strain
variation can be added to get the cumulative strain variation of NEXT beam with depth.
The strain variation with depth for different duration yields clear picture of creep and
shrinkage loss in the NEXT beam.
6.1 Stages for Bridge Erection and Strain Evaluation
The field values in terms of strain and temperature are recorded at different stages for the
strain evaluation due to losses, lifting and transportation o NEXT beam and change in
effective span at respective stages. The data are recorded at following stages. Appendix B
lists the date and time for the data recorded for all the six NEXT beams. The stages
selected for strain measurements are:
Stage 1- Ten minutes after after detensioning of the strands.
Stage 2-After thirty minutes in casting yard.
Stage 3-After 2 days outside the casting yard.
Stage 4-Approximately after one month outside the casting yard.

89
Stage 5- Approximately after three month before transferring NEXT beam.
Stage 6-After setting the NEXT beams 4 to 6 on abutments. (Approximately 3
months)
Stage 7- After pour of concrete deck on NEXT beams 4 to 6
Future strain data acquisition (Not in the scope of present thesis)
Stage 8-Strains before live-load testing.
Stage 9-Strains during live-load testing.
Strain evaluation at stages 1 to 7 is within the scope of present thesis whereas evaluation
of strains for stages 8 to 9 will be conducted in the future. The Brimfield Bridge is being
constructed in two phases. In phase one NEXT beam 4 to 6 are used first at the Bridge
site for the erection of half of the Bridge. Once the first half of the Bridge is ready for
traffic, the second phase will take place by erecting NEXT beams 1 to 3. Therefore,
strains in NEXT beams 4 to 6 are measured for all the seven stages, whereas strains in
beams 1 to 3 (still in the casting yard) will be measured up to stage 5 only.
6.2 Bridge Instrumentation Details
For the evaluation of strains, strain gages were installed in NEXT beams at the precasting
plant. A total of 82 strain gages are used in the six NEXT beams of the Brimfield Bridge.
Strain gages were placed in NEXT beam stems, NEXT beam flanges, and cast-in-place
deck. All strain gages are Geokon Model 4200 vibrating wire gages typically used in
concrete structures.
Strain gages were installed primarily in the midspan section of all the NEXT beams
(Figure 6.2). Additional instrumented sections at one-third and two-thirds of the span
were used for NEXT beams 1 and 2. The instrument locations in the NEXT beam cross-

90
section are shown in Figure 6.1 and 6.2. The small circles with positive sign (Figure 6.2)
are used to represent the instruments. Instrument locations vary for different NEXT
beams. Table 6.1 lists the instrument depths (d
B
,d
M
and d
T
) within the NEXT beam cross
section with respect to the bottom. Instruments (1 to 3 and 5 to 7) are aligned with the
stem of NEXT beams are used to measure the longitudinal strains whereas instruments (4
and 8) installed in the flange between stems are intended to measure deck strains in the
transverse direction. Strain gages within the depth of the cast-in-place deck were placed
(9 to 15) at different locations to measure strains in the transverse direction to assess live-
load distribution among NEXT beams in service. In the present scope of thesis the strain
gauge data for instruments installed in the stem of NEXT beams are used to record and
interpret the data.

Figure 6.1 Instrumentation Plan

91

Figure 6.2 Instrumentation in the NEXT Beam

6.3 Evaluation of Longitudinal Strain
In this section longitudinal strain variation are evaluated using two methods. Longitudinal
strains are first computed analytically and in second method the values are evaluated
based on the field data. Only the section at midspan of NEXT beam is used in both cases.
The longitudinal strains from field measurements are determined at three depths
(d
B
,d
M
,d
T
-Table 6.1) in the NEXT beams. AASHTO equations are written to evaluate
elastic shortening, creep and shrinkage losses at the level of the center of prestressing
force. Therefore, comparisons are done at the center of prestressing force of the strands.
Strains measured at the center of the prestressing force are compared through
interpolation based on the three strains values at different locations (d
B
,d
M
,d
T
-Table 6.1)
in both methods(strains obtained from field data and strains obtained from analytical
method).

92
6.3.1 Strain Variation due to Prestress Losses Analytical Evaluation
Out of different stages (Stage 1 to 6) there is no exterior load applied in the NEXT
beams. But based on instrument data strains were noted to be changed. These strain
changes were attributed to the losses in strands. So for stages 1 to 6 it is the losses
causing strain variation in the NEXT beam whereas in the last stage 7 the strain variation
is caused by loses and weight of fresh concrete.
The analytical values of strain are evaluated in two stages. At first the stress variations at
different instrument locations between different fabrication or construction stages are
calculated. After calculating stress it is divided by the modulus of elasticity of concrete to
determine the strains at those depths. The evaluations of strains by this method are done
only among the seven stages (section 6.1) in which the respective field data are available
so that comparison can be established. For stages 1 to 7 the NEXT beam resists all the
actions. After stage 7 when fresh concrete solidifies, the composite section (future scope)
will be subjected to future actions.
Table 6.1 lists the cross-section properties of the NEXT beam used in the Brimfield
Bridge. The section modulus Z
s
at a given depth can be obtained by dividing moment of
inertia of the section by the respective depth measured from the elastic centroid of the
NEXT beam cross section.

93
Table 6.1: Brimfield Bridge-Section Property

Section Property unit NEXT1 NEXT2 NEXT3 NEXT4 NEXT5 NEXT6
A in
2

1166 1166 1166 1166 1166 1166
d in 32 32 32 32 32 32
c.g in 19.35 19.35
19.35 19.35
19.35 19.35
I in
4

116100 116100 116100 116100 116100 116100
d
B
in
3.75 3.75 3.5 4 4 4.25
d
M
in
8.25 8.125 8.25 8 8.125 8
d
T
in
29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5
Z
SB
=I/(c.g -d
B
) in
3
7442 7442 7325 7564 7564 7689
Z
SI
=I/(c.g- d
M
) in
3
10459 10343 10459 10229 10343 10229
Z
ST
=I/( d
T
-c.g) in
3
11438 11438 11438 11438 11438 11438

Notes :A= Area of NEXT 32 Beam Cross Section; d=Depth of the NEXT beam, c.g =Centre of gravity of
NEXT beam from bottom fiber; I =Moment of Inertia of NEXT 32 beam; d
b
= Depth of Bottom instrument
from bottom fiber; d
M
= Depth of Middle Instrument From Bottom Fiber; d
T
= Depth of Top instrument
from Bottom fiber , Z
SB
=Section Modulus at bottom instrument level; Z
SI
=Section Modulus at intermediate
Instrument location; Z
ST
=Section Modulus at Top instrument location.
6.3.1.1 Strain due to Prestressing Forces
In order to compare measured with calculated strains, the stresses induced in the NEXT
beam cross section at different stages were first determined by calculation. Subsequently
these values were divided by modulus of elasticity of concrete to calculate strains in the
prestressed cross section.
6.3.1.2 Calculation of Stresses Induced due to Prestressing Force
Thirty-six uncoated, low relaxation 0.6-in. prestressing strands (satisfying AASHTO
M203 specifications) were used in each NEXT beam of the Brimfield Bridge to apply the
required prestressing force. The minimum guaranteed ultimate tensile strength of

94
prestressing strand was 270 ksi. An initial tension of 44 kips per strand was applied to all
NEXT beams.
The strand pattern is summarized in Table 6.2 and illustrated graphically in Figure 6.3.
Given this strand pattern, the centroid of the prestressing force is located 8.16 in. (207
mm) from the bottom of the NEXT beams.
Table 6.2: Details of Strand Layer used in NEXT beams
Layers (from
bottom) Number of strands Distance From Bottom Fiber
in. (mm)
1st Layer 6 2.5 (64)
2nd Layer 10 4.50 (114)
3rd Layer 10 6.50 (165)
4th Layer 6 8.5 (216)
5th Layer 4 29.5 (749)
Center of prestressing force 8.16 (207)

Figure 6.3 Strand Location in the NEXT Beam

Table 6.3 lists the details of prestressing force and stress factor calculation (at d
B
,d
M
,d
T
-
Table 6.1). This stress factor is used for the evaluation of stress at instrument locations by
multiplying the factor times the prestressing force. The stress factors at the different

95
instrument depths are calculated using Equation 6.1 to 6.3, where positive values are
indicative of compressive stresses.
Z
BI
=1/A+e/Z
SB
.. Equation 6.1
Z
MI
=1/A+e/Z
SI
..
.
Equation 6.2
Z
TI
=1/A-e/Z
ST
..Equation 6.3
Where,
Z
BI
=Stress factor at bottom instrument location.
Z
MI
=Stress factor at bottom instrument location.
Z
TI
=Stress factor at Top instrument location.
e = eccentricity of center of gravity of tendons from cg of NEXT beam.
Z
SB
=Section modulus at bottom instrument level.
Z
SI
=Section modulus at intermediate Instrument location.
Z
ST
=Section modulus at top instrument location.
Table6.3: Prestressing force and Stress Factor
Number of
Strands
- 36 36 36 36 36 36
P kips 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584
c.g in 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4
y in 8.167 8.167 8.167 8.167 8.167 8.167
e in 11.18 11.18 11.18 11.18 11.18 11.18
y in 0.00236 0.00236 0.00238 0.00234 0.00234 0.00231
Z
BI
/in
2
0.00193 0.00194 0.00184 0.00195 0.00194 0.00195
Z
MI
/in2 -0.00012 -0.00012 -0.00012 -0.00012 -0.00012 -0.00012
Z
TI
/in2 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584

Notes : P = Total Prestressing force; e = eccentricity of c.g. of tendons from cg of NEXT beam; y =
Distance of c.g. of tendons from soffit; Z
BI
= Section factor at bottom instrument location; Z
MI
= Section
factor at bottom instrument location; Z
TI
= Section factor at Top instrument location.

96
Table 6.4 lists the stresses due to prestressing force at the three instrument depths within
the NEXT beam cross section (see Figure 6.2).
Table 6.4 : Stress and Strain due to Prestressing
NEXT
BEAM
Unit
NEXT 1 NEXT 2 NEXT 3 NEXT 4 NEXT 5 NEXT 6
Duration
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
o
BI
=PxZ
BI
ksi 3.74 3.74 3.78 3.70 3.70 3.66
o
MI
=PxZ
MI
ksi 3.05 3.07 3.05 3.09 3.07 3.09
o
TI
=PxZ
TI
ksi -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19
c
BI
=o
BI
/E c
690.16 690.16 697.20 683.11 683.11 676.07
c
MI
=o
MI
/E c
563.41 566.93 563.41 570.45 566.93 570.45
c
TI
=o
TI
/E c
-35.11 -35.11 -35.11 -35.11 -35.11 -35.11

6.3.1.3 Stress Variation due to Losses and Self Weight
6.3.1.4 Short-Term Loss with Relaxation Loss
After releasing the prestressing force onto the beams the following day after casting,
elastic shortening takes place. This loss was estimated as 6.57 % (Appendix C.1.1 for
details). Strand relaxation loss between transfer and deck pour is 0.94 % evaluated in
Appendix C.2.3.Although relaxation loss is long term loss, it is considered with short
term loss to simplify the evaluation of strain. The prestressing force loss is used when
evaluating the effective stress and strain on the cross section after release of the strand.
The only other effect that generates stress in the cross section at this time is caused by
beam self-weight (dead load), which will generate stresses of opposite sign to the
prestressing force at a section at midspan. The effective span to calculate self-weight

97
stresses in the NEXT beams is 66.67 ft (20.32m), assuming that the beam rotates on the
casting bed about its ends. The bending moment at mid span is calculated as 8070 kip-in
(911.78 kN-m). The dead load stresses at different depths for the different NEXT beams
are listed in Table 6.5. The stress is evaluated using the flexure formula (Equation 6.4),
and strains are evaluated by dividing stress by the concrete modulus of elasticity E for
each beam.
o=M/Z ..Equation6.4
c=o/E ..Equation 6.5
Where,
o = Longitudinal Bending Stress in the NEXT beam.
M= Bending Moment at the mid Spam
Z = Section modulus at instrument depths.
E=5417.2 ksi (For stage 1 to 3)
E=5795 ksi (For stage 4 to 7)

98
Table6.5: Stress due to Self Weight

NEXT BEAM

Unit
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
o
DB
=8070/Z
SB
ksi -1.08 -1.08 -1.10 -1.07 -1.07 -1.05
o
DM
=8070/Z
SM
ksi -0.77 -0.78 -0.71 -0.79 -0.78 -0.79
o
DT
=8070/Z
ST
ksi 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71
c
DB
=o
DB
/E c
-199.4 -199.4 -203.1 -197.5 -197.5 -193.8
c
DM
=o
DM
/E c
-142.1 -144.0 -131.1 -145.8 -144.0 -145.8
c
TT
=o
DT
/E c
131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1 131.1

Considering the total short term losses TL=6.58+0.94=7.52% , The effective calculated
stress in the NEXT beam considering the elastic shortening and beam self-weight at
instrument depths are listed in Table 6.6. This stress condition corresponds to stage 1 as
presented in Table 6.6.

99
Table6.6: Stress and Strain at Stage 1

NEXT BEAM
Unit

Duration
10
Minutes

10
Minutes

10
Minutes
10
Minutes

10
Minutes
10
Minutes
o
BI
=o
DB
+P(1-L/100)xZ
BI
ksi 2.37 .37 2.39 2.35 2.35 2.34
o
MI
=o
DM
+P(1-TL/100)xZ
MI
ksi 2.05 2.06 2.05 2.07 2.06 2.07
o
TI
=o
DT
+P(1-TL/100)xZ
TI
ksi 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
c
BI
=o
BI
/E c 437.69 437.69 440.99 434.39 434.39 431.09
c
MI
=o
MI
/E c 378.29 379.94 378.29 381.59 379.94 381.59
c
TI
=o
TI
/E c 97.79 97.79 97.79 97.79 97.79 97.79

100
6.3.1.5 Time Dependent (Long-term) Losses
Time-dependent deformation of concrete (creep) is a well known effect that must be
considered in elements subjected to sustained compressive forces (such as prestressing).
Concrete also contracts due to loss of water that migrates to the surface (shrinkage).
These volumetric changes in the concrete induce prestressing force losses that must be
accounted. The prestressing strand also suffers from relaxation with time that generates a
loss of prestressing force. Although the strands used in the Brimfield Bridge are low
relaxation, some loss of prestressing force will occur in the long-term. These three
sources of prestressing force loss are time dependent and will continue with time. In
Appendix C creep (Appendix C.2.2) and shrinkage (Appendix C.2.1) losses are
calculated after 30.16 days. In the present thesis time dependent losses were also
calculated at other times in the same way as it is presented for 30.16 days. At each stage
loss will be used in reducing the prestressing force to evaluate the stress in similar way as
it is done for elastic shortening. Table 6.7 (a to f) list the time dependent losses in
percentage of the initial prestressing stress for all the six NEXT beams at different stages.
The C+S is representing the sum of creep and shrinkage loss. The detailed evaluations
of creep and shrinkage losses along with corresponding strains are listed in all tables of
Appendix C.

101
Table 6.7(a-f): Stage wise Creep and Shrinkage Losses

(a) Time Dependent Loss for NEXT beam 1
NEXT Beam 1
Date Time Days
(C+S)
%Age Loss Stage
After detensioning 4-26 8:00 0.00 0.000
After set on temporary support 4-26 8:30 0.02 0.010
NEXT Beam outside plant 4-28 8:30 2.02 0.893
NEXT Beam on abutment 8-11 8:00 107.00 9.54

NOTES: C+S Creep and Shrinkage Loss at the Prestressing Force
(b) Time Dependent Loss for NEXT beam 2
NEXT Beam 2
Date Time Days
(C+S)
%Age Loss Stage

(c) Time Dependent Loss for NEXT beam 3
NEXT Beam 3
Date Time Days
(C+S)
% Age
Loss Stage

102
(d) Time Dependent Loss for NEXT beam 4
NEXT Beam 4
Date Time Days
(C+S)
% Age
Loss Stage
NEXT Beam on Abutment 8-11 8:00 107.00 9.54
After Pour of Fresh Concrete 9-13 9:50 140.08 9.98

(e) Time Dependent Loss for NEXT beam 5
NEXT Beam 5
Date Time Days
(C+S)
% Age
Loss Stage
NEXT Beam Outside plant 5-26 8:30 28.13 6.26

(f) Time Dependent Loss for NEXT beam 6
NEXT Beam 6
Date Time Days
(C+S)%
Age Loss Stage

103
During the different stages presented in Table 6.7, the support condition of the beams
changed during handling, which resulted in different magnitudes of dead load bending
moment at midspan. As discussed earlier at the time of prestressing force release the
NEXT beams are assumed to rotate about its ends with an effective span of 66.67ft
(20.32m). Beam handling and positioning inside the precasting plant because changes in
the stresses throughout the NEXT beam depth. Temporary beam supports (inside and
outside casting yard) were placed approximately 36in. (0.91m) from each end shortening
the span by 72in. (1.82m). The effective span for the NEXT beams under self-weight
decreased to 60.72ft (18.50 m) for these two stages.
The self-weight bending moment at midspan for this effective span is 6683 kip-in (755
kN-m). As we are concerned with change in strains between stages, the net bending
moment induced by self-weight considered to evaluate stress and strain at stages between
detensioning and placement of beams on abutments is calculated as 6683-8070 = -
1387.06 kip-in (-156.46 kN-m). Table 6.8 lists the stress and strain variations due to
change in effective span.

104
Table 6.8: Stress due to Change in Effective Span

NEXT BEAM
Unit
Duration
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
minutes
o
DBV
=-1387/Z
SB
ksi
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18
o
DMV
=-1387/Z
SM
ksi
0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14
o
DTV
=-1387/Z
ST
ksi
-0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12
c
DB
=o
DB
/E c
35.1 35.1 35.1 33.2 33.2 33.2
c
DM
=o
DM
/E c
24.0 24.0 24.0 25.8 24.0 25.8
c
TT
=o
DT
/E c
-22.2 -22.2 -22.2 -22.2 -22.2 -22.2

These stresses are considered in addition to the variation in stress due to creep and
shrinkage losses. For stage 2 the elapsed time is 30 minutes so time dependent loss (creep
+ shrinkage loss, in percent) is L=0.01.

105
Table 6.9: Stress and Strain between Stage 1 and Stage 2

NEXT BEAM Unit NEXT 1 NEXT 2 NEXT 3 NEXT 4 NEXT 5 NEXT 6
Duration

30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
o
BI2
=o
DBV
+P(-L/100)xZ
BI
ksi 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18
o
MI2
=o
DMV
+P(-L/100)xZ
MI
ksi 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14
o
TI2
=o
DTV
+P(-L/100)xZ
TI
ksi -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12
c
BI
=o
BI
/E c 34.32 34.34 34.89 33.77 33.77 33.22
c
MI
=o
MI
/E c 24.41 24.70 24.43 24.96 24.69 24.96
c
TI
=o
TI
/E c -22.38 -22.38 -22.38 -22.38 -22.38 -22.38

106
In a similar way, for other stages before transfer the NEXT beam to the site the stress and
strain variations between stages are calculated and results are summarized in Appendices
G and H, respectively.
At the Bridge site, the NEXT beams were supported on blocks located 7 in. from the end
of each beam so the span changed to 65.56 ft (19.98 m). The corresponding bending
moment at midspan is 7790 kip-in (880 kN-m).The self-weight stress and strain changed
because of beam positioning on abutments due to a net bending moment change at
midspan of 7790-8070=-280.06 kip-in (-31.5 kN-m).
Table 6.10 lists the stress and strain variations due to change in effective span at this
stage. Only NEXT beams 4 to 6 were transferred to the site.
Table 6.10: Stress Change due to Change in Effective Span

NEXT BEAM
Unit
NEXT 4 NEXT 5 NEXT 6
Duration
107
Days

104
Days
104
Days
o
DBV
=-280.6/Z
SB

ksi -1.03 0.04 0.04
o
DMV
=-280.6/Z
SM

ksi -0.76 0.03 0.03
o
DTV
=-280.6/Z
ST

ksi -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
c
DBV
=o
DBV
/E
c -177.7 6.9 6.9
c
DMV
=o
DMV
/E
c -131.1 5.2 5.2
c
DTV
=o
DTV
/E
c -3.5 -3.5 -3.5

At the site, the deck is poured onto the NEXT beam flanges; therefore NEXT beams
support the weight of wet concrete in addition to self-weight prior to development of
composite action. The bending moment calculated at midspan from the weight of wet

107
concrete is 4992 kip-in (563.86 kN-m). Only the beams erected during phase I NEXT
beams 4 to 6) are included in these calculations.
Table 6.11: Stress Change Induced by Weight of Wet Concrete

NEXT BEAM
Unit
NEXT 4 NEXT 5 NEXT 6
Duration
140
Days
136
Days
136
Days
o
DB
=4992/Z
SB

ksi -0.66 -0.66 -0.65
o
DI
=4992/Z
SM

ksi -0.49 -0.48 -0.49
o
DT
=4992/Z
ST

ksi 0.44 0.44 0.44
c
DB
=o
DB
/E
c -113.9 -113.9 -112.2
c
DI
=o
DI
/E
c -84.6 -82.8 -84.6
c
DT
=o
DT
/E
c 75.9 75.9 75.9

The stage wise strain variations induced by long term effects, weight of wet concrete, and
change in effective span were used to determine the stress and strains presented in
Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively.
6.3.2 Longitudinal Strains Determined from Field Data
Strain data were collected periodically over 5 months (between 22 April 2011 and 22
September 2011) to determine the long-term field behavior of NEXT beams in the
Brimfield Bridge. Data were collected for all the strain gages cast in the six NEXT beams
of the Brimfield Bridge at different locations. The dates of data collection are listed in
Appendix B under Table B.1.The tables of Appendix F list all the field data for strain and
temperature for the six NEXT beams in the Brimfield Bridge. Strains between different
stages are evaluated by using temperature correction equation in all the tables of

108
Appendix G. After temperature correction, the true load related strains were used to get
the cumulative strains at different stages and be able to generate strain profiles along
NEXT beam depth. The evaluated cumulative strains are listed in the tables of Appendix
H.
6.3.2.1 Evaluation of Stage Wise Strain variation due to losses
The stage wise measured strains are presented in Appendix G with the help of Equation
6.6 As an example, Table 6.12 presents the field data collected for NEXT beam 1. Full
data are available in the appendix.
True
= (R1-R0) B + (T1-T0) (C1-C2) ..Equation 6.6
Where,
True
= true load related strain.
R
1
= measured strains at present stage.
R
0
= measured strains at previous stage.
B =0.975 is calibration factor
T
1
= measured temperature at present stage.
T
0
= measured temperature at previous stage
C
1
= 12.2 micro strain/
o
C Thermal coefficient of expansion for wire
C
2
o

109
Table 6.12: Field Data for NEXT Beam 1

Date (Time)
Date:
04/26/2011
(08.10)
Date: 04/26/2011
(08.30)
Date: 04/28/2011
(08.30)
Date:
05/26/2011
(12:15)
GEOKON 4200
After De
Tensioning
Temporary
Support (OY)
Temporary
Support (OY)
Temporary
Support (OY)
Gage
Location GL
Strain
(c) T (C)
Strain
(c) T (C)
Strain
(c) T (C)
Strain
(c) T (C)
Midspan 1-9 2018.9 66.0 1901.7 64.9 1712.3 22.7 1645.6 20.7
Midspan 1-10 1984.1 67.2 1891.0 66.2 1753.4 22.9 1725.0 20.5
Midspan 1-11 2008.1 64.6 1864.0 63.0 1674.8 22.7 1584.2 22.8
Midspan 1-12 2028.1 65.0 1915.9 63.7 1781.0 22.9 1727.1 22.8
Midspan 1-13 2213.8 62.4 2249.7 60.4 2204.7 22.3 2211.4 27.2
Midspan 1-14 2501.1 51.4 2493.6 47.2 2410.7 21.6 2400.7 34.2
Midspan 1-15 2398.5 63.5 2430.2 60.9 2405.1 22.4 2394.7 30.0
Midspan 1-16 2470.4 47.0 2520.8 60.0 2408.9 21.8 2416.6 35.7

Notes: GL: Gage Label; OY: Outside Yard

Based on field data (Table 6.12) individual load related strains between two stages are
evaluated with the help of Equation 6.6. In all the stages listed in Table 6.12, no exterior
load was applied, but changes in strains were observed. These changes were attributed to
long term losses (creep and shrinkage loss) and beam handling during lifting and
transportation. Table 6.13 lists the individual load related strains between data taken on
four different dates. These values are calculated by using Equation 6.6. The
comprehensive calculation of individual load related strains are listed in Appendix G for
all six NEXT beams.

110
Table 6.13: Strain Variation due to Creep and Shrinkage

GEOKON 4200
Duration
30
Minutes
2
Days
1
months
Instrument Depth from BF C+S C+S C+S
Gage Label y Strain(c) Strain(c) Strain(c)
1-9 3.75 -117 -278 -69
1-10 8.25 -93 -229 -33
1-13 29.50 31 -128 17

1-11 3.75 -144 -273 -88
1-12 8.00 -112 -221 -53
1-15 29.50 25 -109 7

Notes : C: Creep Loss; S: Shrinkage Loss, BF : Bottom Fiber

6.3.2.2 Cumulative Strains by Construction Stage
The individual strain changes by stage are used to compute the cumulative strain value.
The cumulative strains are necessary to determine the total strains at any given stage
including time dependent phenomena related to long term losses from creep, shrinkage
and relaxation for the NEXT beams. Cumulative strains are obtained by adding the
individual strain change at a given stage with the cumulative strain calculated at the
previous stage. Table 6.13 lists cumulative strains for NEXT beam 1. In each evaluation
cumulative strain of last stage is added to the individual true load related strain of that
stage. Cumulative strains for other NEXT beams (beams 1 to 6) are presented in
Appendix H.

111
Table 6.14: Stage Wise Cumulative Strain

GEOKON
4200
Duration
30
Minutes
2
Days
1
Months
Instrument Depth
from BF
C+S C+S C+S
Gage Label y(in) Strain(c) Strain(c) Strain(c)
1-9 3.75 -715-117=-832
-832-278=-
1109
-69-1109=-
1256
1-10 8.25 -674-93=-767
-229-767=-
997
-33-997=-
1029
1-13 29.50 -414+31=-383
-128-383=-
511 17-511=-494
1-11 3.75 -729-144=-873
-273-873=-
1146
-88-1146=-
1234
1-12 8.00 -704-112=-816
-221-816=-
1037
-53-1037=-
1090
1-15 29.50 -437+25=-412
-109-412=-
521 7-521=-514

Notes : C: Creep Loss; S: Shrinkage Loss, BF: Bottom Fiber
6.4 Comparison of Measured and Calculated Strains

Strains presented in section 6.3 were obtained in the field from the instrumentation used
in the NEXT beams. These strains are compared with strains calculated analytically that
include short term and long-term effects of prestressed NEXT beams in this section. The
strains obtained at the three different instrumented heights in the stem of the NEXT
beams were used to determine the strains at the center of the prestressing force using
interpolation. Figure 6.4 shows the location of center of the prestressing force in the
NEXT beams of the Brimfield Bridge, where the strain comparison is carried out. Table
6.15 list and compare the strain values obtained from field data and those obtained
analytically.
Figure 6.5 (a to f) presents the graphical presentation of strain comparison for all the six
NEXT beams. The comparison for NEXT beams 1 to 3 has been done for first five stages

112
whereas for NEXT beams 4 to 6 has been done for all the seven stages due to the
different construction phases. We can see that the strain at stages beyond 30 days and 105
days are closer whereas immediately after transfer of prestrees load the variation is
higher. This large variation can be attributed to lifting and transportation of the NEXT
beam.

Figure 6.4 NEXT Beam with Center of Prestressing Force

113
Table 6.15 Long Term Loss Comparison for All Six NEXT Beams

Days
Strains (c)
M A M A M A M A M A M A
0 456 379 399 381 442 379 496 379 430 381 -414 -383
0.02 102 25 94 25 85 25 99 25 105 25 -136 -25
2 225 -5 185 -9 192 -9 229 -5 -255 33
28 226 -33
30 43 -30 -13 -3 -12 -3 49 -29
98 89 -17 -88 17
101 92 -16 40 -24 49 -24 99 -16
104 -14 4 -12 4 17 -4
107 65 -14 49 -14
136

-60 -86 109 87
140 -70 -85

Notes: M: Measured Strain based on Field Data; A: Analytically alculated Strain

114

(a) Stage Wise Strain Comparison - NEXT Beam 1

-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 2 4 6 8
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
c
)
Days
Stage Wise Strain Comparison-NEXT 2
Instrumentation
Analytical
0 0.02 2 30 101 105 `

(b) Stage Wise Strain Comparison - NEXT Beam 2

115

-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 2 4 6 8
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
c
)
Days
Stage Wise Strain Comparison -NEXT 3
Instrumentation
Analytical
0 0.02 2 30 101 105

(c) Stage Wise Strain Comparison - NEXT Beam 3
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 2 4 6 8
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
c
)
Days
Instrumentation
Analytical

(d) Stage Wise Strain Comparison - NEXT Beam 4

116
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 2 4 6 8
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
c
)
Days
Instrumentation
Analytical
0 0.02 28 98 104 136

(e) Stage Wise Strain Comparison - NEXT Beam 5

-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 2 4 6 8
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
c
)

Days
Stage Wise Strain Comparison -NEXT 6
Instrumentation
Analytical
0 0.02 28 98 104 136

(f ) Stage Wise Strain Comparison - NEXT Beam 6
Figure 6.5: (a-f) Stage Wise Strain Comparison All Six NEXT Beam

117
6.5 NEXT Beam Strain Profiles at Various Construction Stages

Cumulative strain components are useful to get the variation pattern of strain with beam
depth. The three measured strain values in each stem were used to get the strain pattern
with NEXT beam depth at different stages. Proximity of measured strain profiles to a
linear variation with depth can also be determined using the three strain values measured
at each stage to assess data reliability. The following sections discuss the measured strain
profiles in detail.
6.5.1 Evaluation of Creep and Shrinkage Strains
Strains vary for each construction stage as discussed above. Some of these changes were
caused, in the short term, by elastic shortening, beam handling between stages, and
changes in the effective beam span. Other variations are induced by long-term effects
such as creep, shrinkage and strand relaxation. For the first measurement taking place 10
minutes after strand detensioning, the measured strains are solely caused by elastic
shortening of the NEXT beams due to transfer of the prestressing force. Strain changes
after detensioning are induced by beam handling (short term) or creep, shrinkage and
relaxation (long term). In the long-term, prestressing force losses cause strain variations
to take place with time. The long-term measured strain variation results from the
combined effect of creep, shrinkage and relaxation since the instrumentation did not
allow separation of these effects. These long-term measured strains are compared with
results obtained from long-term loss equations latest AASHTO LRFD Specifications
(2010). To facilitate the comparisons, strains are computed the center of prestressing
force and compared with interpolated values from the instrumentation.

118
Because of unequal top and bottom creep and shrinkage strains, the strain variation with
depth of NEXT beams will likely follow the pattern shown in Figure 6.6. This
distribution assumes that creep strains are going to be larger than shrinkage strains that
would typically be maximum at the top surface of the NEXT beams. Strand relaxation
would tend to have an offsetting effect to the strain distribution shown, but the change in
strain caused by strand relaxation will be smaller than the change induced by creep and
shrinkage.

Figure6.6 Trapezoidal Stress Variation due to Creep

Therefore, the time dependent variation of strain and stress due to creep, shrinkage and
relaxation loss of the NEXT beams should be trapezoidal. Figure 6.7 (a to f) show the
strains measured at the first, third (approximately after 1 month), and fifth stages
(approximately after 105 days) for all NEXT beams at midspan. The measured strain
profiles are approximately linear, with the highest compressive strain near the bottom of
the NEXT beams as would be expected. Furthermore, the changes in strain between the
first stage (30 minutes after detensioning) and the second stage are primarily induced by
beam handling, but some changes induced by creep, shrinkage and relaxation are also

119
apparent. The decreased effect of long-term strains with time is evidenced by the small
variation observed between 30 days and 100 days.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1500 -1000 -500 0
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
)
Strain(c)
Strain Variation Girder 1 (Mid Span)
30 Min
30 Days
101 Days
C+S Loss
8
.
1
6
7

(a) Strain Variation-NEXT Beam 1

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1000 -500 0
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
)
Strain (c)
Strain Variation - Girder 2-(Mid Span)
30 Min
34 Days
105 Days
8
.
1
6
7
C+S Loss

(b) Strain Variation-NEXT Beam 2

120

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1000 -500 0
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
)
Strain (c)
Strain Variation - Girder 3-(Mid Span)
30
34 Days
105 Days
8
.
1
6
7
C+S Loss

(c) Strain Variation-NEXT Beam 3

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1500 -1000 -500 0
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
)

Strain(c)
Strain Variation Girder 4-Mid Span
30 Min
30 Days
105 Days
8
.
1
6
7
C+S Loss

(d) Strain Variation-NEXT Beam 4

121

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1500 -1000 -500 0
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
)

Strain (c)
30 Min
28 Days
105 Days
8
.
1
6
7
C+S Loss

(e) Strain Variation-NEXT Beam 5

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1500 -1000 -500 0
D
e
p
t
h

(
i
n
)
Strain (c)
30 Min
28 Days
105 Days
8
.
1
6
7
C+S Loss

(f) Strain Variation-NEXT Beam 6

Figure 6.7 (a-f): Strain Vs Depth NEXT Beam 1to 6

122

The strain values at the center of the prestressing force located 8.16in (207.44mm) above
the bottom flange were calculated based on values measured at the three instrument
locations . The black arrows (at the level of center of prestressing force) in Figure 6.7
represent primarily the strain due to creep and shrinkage that occurred approximately
after one. However, because the beams were handled during this period, there is also a
small strain change induced by repositioning of the supports near the ends of the beams
as mentioned before. Similarly the strain change approximately 100 days after casting is
shown not to differ much from the values obtained at 30 days. The obtained strain
variation due to creep (Appendix C.2.2.1) and shrinkage (Appendix C2.2.2.2) loss is
compared to the strain variation obtained from AASHTO LRFD equations. This
comparison is listed in Table 6.15. The comparison is done for the approximate duration
of 30 and 105 days.
Table 6.16: comparison of Strain Variation due to Time Dependent Loss

BEAM Days
Time Dependent
Loss
% Age
Difference Days
Time
Dependent
Loss
% Age
Difference A M A M
NEXT 1 30 452 373 17 105 573 465 19
NEXT 2 34 470 309 34 105 655 374 43
NEXT 3 34 470 315 33 105 655 265 59
NEXT 4 30 452 378 16 105 659 477 28
NEXT 5 28 438 332 24 105 567 422 26
NEXT 6 28 438 393 10 105 567 481 15

Notes: M: Measured Strain based on Field Data; A: Analytically alculated Strain
Based on comparison we can see that results are relatively near to the NEXT beam 1, 2, 5
and 6. The large difference for the strain in the NEXT beam 3 and 4 could be attributed to

123
the condition inside and outside the casting yard. Both beams were cast at the same time
and went through similar construction conditions.
The differences for the other four NEXT beams are varying in the range of 10 to 15
percent. Based on the results so far we can conclude that time dependent equations to
evaluate creep and shrinkage losses in AASHTO LRFD (2010) can be applied to NEXT
beams.
6.6 Conclusion

- Based on the field data, strain variation in the NEXT beams due to prestress loss
are calculated between different stages. The evaluated strains from filed data were
compared with the strain obtained from AASHTO equation. The strains after
large duration are found to be closer which asserts the accuracy of AASHTO
equation of losses for the NEXT beam. The variation in strains immediately after
stressing found to be higher. The high variation in strains can be attributed lifting
and transportation of the NEXT beam. The support conditions which were
changed for different stages at also causes strain variation obtained from field data
and analytical method.
- The strain variation of NEXT beams with depth at different stages is calculated.
Based on the variation it was found that the strain profile with the depth is linear.
It was also revealed that deformation is higher in concentrated zone of
prestressing. The higher deformation in the zone of prestressing forces is the
creep deformation under sustained loads (prestressing forces).

124
CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The complex shape of NEXT beam in terms of spacing between the girders and
calculation of live load distribution factors (LLDFs) has originated this thesis. Also in the
past bridge with NEXT beam type girder were not verified with any of the advanced form
of analysis.
Based on these reasons following points were considered in this thesis.
-Verification of outcome of PCI technical committee for span and skew parameter,
whether single stem approach results in higher LLDFs for NEXT beams or not.
-Verification of trends of AASHTO LLDFs for span and skew parameter with the help of
FEM model with different end conditions.
-Four methods are used to evaluate the LLDFs were compared to check which method is
yielding the higher value of LLDFs.
All evaluation and verification of LLDFs for different parameters are done with the help
of different models which are created in SAP 200014.2 based on the Brimfield Bridge
model. UMASS is associated with instrumentation of the Brimfield Bridge model. The
readings at the instrumentation at different stages were further used in the verification of
prestress loss equation of the NEXT beam. The strain variation along the depth of the
NEXT beam also helped in appreciating the behavior of NEXT beam in terms of creep
and shrinkage.

125
7.1 Outcome and Suggestions
7.1.1 Verification of outcome of PCI technical committee.
Based on the result it was concluded that single stem (SST) approach gives higher values
of LLDF (for both bending moment and shear force) for the interior girder for span and
skew parameter and agrees the outcome of PCI technical committee of the particular
case. On the contrary the double stem approach is yielding higher value of LLDFs. As
LLDFs for exterior girders depends on the configuration of the footpath and kerb, it is
difficult to generalize that which method will give higher value of LLDFs. So for interior
girder SST approach can be used and for exterior girder the LLDF has to be taken the
maximum of the two obtained from SST and DST approach.
The LLDFs (for both bending moment and shear forces) for the interior girders are
governed by two or more lanes loaded case whereas for exterior girders case it is
governed by one lane loaded case.
7.1.2 Trend Comparison Span Parameter
As per AASHTO equations the LLDFs for bending moment decrease as we increase the
span whereas LLDFs for shear force remain constant, Based on verification with FEM
model with simply support (FE
SS
) condition similar trend was observed for the LLDFs
for the bending moment. The LLDFs for shear force were not constant for the FEM
model (FE
SS
case) but the variation was in the range of 1 to 5%, which can be treated as
constant. The verification of LLDFs with FEM model with integral abutment case
(FE
IAB
) was not in the agreement of AASHTO variation for the bending moment, but the
LLDFs are values were lesser for FE
IAB
case. The LLDF variation was similar to the FE
SS
case.

126
7.1.3 Trend comparison Skew Parameter
As per AASHTO equations the LLDFs for bending moment decrease as we increase the
skew whereas LLDFs for shear force increases. The trends were in agreement to the FEM
model with different end condition. However the value for LLDFs for shear force for the
exterior girder for FEM model was found to be higher. The reason behind high value of
LLDFs for the exterior girder is the type of member considered (3D frame element).
The 3D frame element resulted in higher value of cantilever zone which further resulted
in torsion. This torsion transferred to support in from of one way shear which is opposite
to the two way shear caused in the NEXT beam.
7.1.4 Comparison for LLDFs with different end condition
LLDFs for bending moment obtained from SS model are higher than IAB model. This
trend is observed for both parameters i.e. span and skew angle of the Bridge. The trend is
as per the expectation due to added stiffness of sub structure and foundations. For shear
force LLDFs for shear force for varying span (50 ft (15.24 m), 66.67 ft (20.34 m), 80 ft
(24.384 m) with 0
o
skew angle obtained from SS model vary marginally with respect to
IAB model. This result is as per the expectation as inclusion of sub structure and
foundation to the model does not vary the shear force in the girder at different locations.
LLDFs for shear force for varying skew angle (0
o
, 30
o
, 45
o
) with 66.67 ft span obtained
from SS model attain much higher value than IAB model. The reason behind the high
value of LLDFs of shear force for high skew angle is discussed in the section 7.1.2.
The LLDFs (for both bending moment and shear forces) for the interior girders are
governed by two or more lanes loaded case whereas for exterior girders case it is
governed by one lane loaded case.

127
7.1.5 Verification of Prestress Loss Equation of AASHTO
The strain variation caused by the losses are calculated by two different methods and
compared to verify the different loss equations mentioned in AASHTO. The strain
variations between stages for larger duration were found to be closer and assert the
accuracy of loss equations for the NEXT beams. The variation in strain value after the
release was attributed to the lifting, transportation of the NEXT beams. The change in
span of the support condition was the other reasons resulted in strain variation.

128
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CURVE EVALUATION FOR SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

Equation A.1 gives us the nonlinear force displacement curve for the soil at a particular depth Z. For a fixed value of Z we can obtain
the relationship between force P (soil resistance at varying depth as function of Y) and displacement Y (lateral displacement of pile
due to load application on Bridge). The P-Y curve has been evaluated at each 1 ft distance of the pile. The other curves at different
depths are not shown for sake of clarity. Equation A.2 is an empirical factor that fits analytical data to experimental results. It is
further dependent on depth of the soil modeled and equivalent diameter of pile which will be obtained by converting the area of pile in
to an equivalent circle.
F = AP
U
tanh (K
1
ZY/AP
U
) L
P
..Equation A.1
A = 3-0.8[Z/D] >=0 ..Equation A.2
P
U
is used in Equation A.1 is estimating ultimate lateral soil resistance which will be taken as minimum of P
US
and P
UD
obtained
through equation A.3 and A.4 respectively.
P
US
= [C
1
Z+C
2
D]Z ..Equation A.3
P
UD
=C
3
Z ..Equation A.4

129
C
1
, C
2
and C
3
are different soil parameters which are further dependent on the factors defined through equation A.8 to equation A.11.
The obtained value of C
1
, C
2
and C
3
are 3.02, 3.42 and 54.04 respectively.
C
1
=K
0
tan|sin|/tan (||) coso+tan
2
|tano/tan (||) K
0
tan|(tan|sin|-tano) .....Equation A.5
C
2
= tan|/tan (||)-tan
2
(45-|/2) ..Equation A.6
C
3
= K
0
tan|tan
4
(||) +K
a
-tan
8
|-1 ..Equation A.7
Equation 4.8 and equation 4.9 represent active earth pressure coefficient and pressure coefficient at rest. As evident these pressure
coefficients are used to evaluate parameter C
1
C
2
and C
3
represented by equation 4.5, equation 4.6 and equation 4.7 respectively.
K
a
=tan |t/4|/2|
2
..Equation A.8
K
0
= [1-sin|] ..Equation A.9
o and | are soil parameters which are dependent on |. | is representing angle of repose or soil friction angle. For the IAB modeling
sandy soil is considered and the value of | taken in modeling the soil is 35
o
at all the depths. The values obtained for o and | are 17.5
degree and 62.5 degree respectively. | is representing the plane of maximum shear stress in the soil.
o = |/2 ....Equation A.10
| =45+|/2 ....Equation A.11

130
APPENDIX B

DATE AND TIME OF RECORDED FIELD DATA

Table B 1: Date of Field Data

NEXT1 NEXT2 NEXT3 NEXT4 NEXT5 NEXT6
Date Time Date Time Date Time Date Time Date Time Date Time
4/26/2011 8:00 4/22/2011 8:00 4/22/2011 8:00 4/26/2011 8:00 4/28/2011 8:00 4/28/2011 8:00
4/26/2011 8:30 4/22/2011 8:30 4/22/2011 8:30 4/26/2011 8:30 4/28/2011 8:30 4/28/2011 8:30
4/28/2011 8:30 4/26/2011 8:30 4/26/2011 8:30 4/28/2011 8:30 5/26/2011 8:30 5/26/2011 8:30
5/26/2011 12:15 4/28/2011 12:15 4/28/2011 12:15 5/26/2011 12:15 8/5/2011 12:15 8/5/2011 12:15
8/5/2011 11:35 5/26/2011 11:35 5/26/2011 11:35 8/5/2011 11:35 8/11/2011 11:35 8/11/2011 11:35
8/05/2011 11:50 8/5/2011 8:00 8/11/2011 8:00 9/13/2011 10:15 9/13/2011 10:15
9/13/2011 9:50 9/22/2011 4:15 9/22/2011 4:00
9/22/2011 4:30

131
APPENDIX C

LOSS EVALUAION
In pretentioned Members
Af
pT =
Af
pS+
Af
pLT
Where,
Af
pT =
Total Loss
Af
pS
= Short term Loss
Af
pLT =
Losses due to long terms Shrinkage and creep of concrete, and Relaxation of the steel (ksi)

C.1 Short Term Loss
Af
pS =
Af
pES+
Af
pR1
Where
Af
pES
= Prestress Loss due to Elastic Shortening (ksi).
C.1.1 Evaluation of Af
PES
.
Af
PES
= E
P
/E
CI
*f
cgp
= 13.32 ksi
E
P
= Modulus of Elasticity of Prestress Tendons = 29000 ksi
E
CI
= Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete at Transfer = 5297 ksi
fci' = Specified concrete strength at the time of transfer. = 8.63 ksi
f
cgp
= Stress at the CG of strands. = 2.432 ksi
% Age Loss = 13.31/202*100 = 6.57 %

C.2 Long Term Loss
Af
pLT=
(Af
pSR
+ Af
pCR
+ Af
pR1
)
id
+ (Af
pSD
+ Af
pCD
+ Af
pR2
- Af
pSS
)
DF
Where
Af
pSR
= Prestress Loss due to Shrinkage of Girder Concrete between transfer and deck placement (ksi).
Af
pCR
= Prestress Loss due to Creep of Girder Concrete between transfer and deck placement (ksi).

Af
pR1
= Prestress Loss due to Relaxation of Prestressing Strand between transfer and deck placement (ksi).

Af
pSD
= Prestress Loss due to Shrinkage of Girder Concrete between time of deck placement and final time (ksi). (Future Scope)

132
Af
pCD
=

Prestress Loss due to Creep of Girder Concrete between time of deck placement and final time (ksi). (Future Scope)
Af
pR2
= Prestress Loss due to relaxation of strands in composite section between time of deck placement and final time (ksi). (Future
Scope)

Af
pSS
= Prestress Gain due to Shrinkage of deck in Composite Section (ksi). (Future Scope)

pSR

Af
PSR
Stress loss in Strands due to shrinkage for the mentioned case=c
bid
*E
P
*K
ID
= 3.72 ksi
c
SR
Strain loss in the strands due to mentioned Shrinkage=c
bid
*K
ID

= 128.21
K
ID

=1/[1+(E
P
/E
CI
)*(A
PS
/A
G
)*(1+A
G
*e
2
PG
/I
G
){1+0.7
b
(t
f
,t
i
)}]

= 0.89

Transformed Section Coefficient that account for time-dependent interaction
between

concrete and bonded steel in the section being considered for time between transfer

and deck placement.

c
bid
Shrinkage Strain between transfer and Deck Placement=K
s
*K
hs
*K
f
*K
td
*0.48*10
-3
= 0.00014

b(
t
f
,t
i)
Creep Coefficient between transfer and deck placement =1.9*K
s
*K
hc
*K
f
*K
td
*t
i
-0.118
= 0.79

K
s
Effect for the volume to Surface Ration =1.45-0.13(V/S)>=1.0

= 1.00

K
hs
Humidity Factor for the Shrinakge =2.00-0.014H

= 1.09

K
hc
humidity Factor for the Creep=1.56-0.008H

= 1.04

K
f
Factor for the effect of Concrete Strength =5/(1+f
ci
')

= 0.52

K
td
Time Development Factor=t/(61-4f
ci
'+t)

= 0.53

V Volume/Length of Double T Section

= 1182 in
2

S Surface Area/Length of Double T Section

= 311 in
H Average Annual Ambient mean Relative Humidity.

= 65

t
i
Final age (Days)

= 30.16 days
t
f
Age at Transfer (Days)

= 0.042 days

133

Matereial Properties

f
ci
' specified concrete strength at the time of transfer.

= 8.64 ksi
E
P
Modulus of Elasticity of Prestress Tendons

= 29000 ksi
E
CI
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete at Transfer

= 5297 ksi

Section Property

A
PS
Area of Prestressing Steel

= 7.81 in
2

A
G
Gross Area of Section

= 1182 in
2

I
G
Moment ofInertia of Gross concrete Section about Centroidal Axis

= 116100 in
4

Eccentricities

e
PG
eccentricity of Strand with respect to centroid of Girder

= 11.18 in

pSD

Af
PCR
Stress loss in strand due to creep between transfer and deck
placement=f
cgp
*E
P
/E
ci
*K
id*
b
(t
d
,t
i
) = 9.38 ksi
c
CR
Strain Loss in Strands due to creep loss=f
cgp
/E
ci
*K
id*
b
(t
d
,t
i
) = 323.47
K
id

=1/[1+(E
P
/E
CI
)*(A
PS
/A
G
)*(1+A
G
*e
2
PG
/I
G
){1+0.7
b
(t
f
,t
i
)}] = 0.89

Transformed Section Coefficient that account for time-dependent interaction between Concrete
and

bonded steel in the section being considered for time between transfer and deck
placement.

b(
t
d
,t
i)
Girder Creep coefficient between transfer and deck placement =1.9*K
s
*K
hc
*K
f
*K
td
*t
i
-0.118
= 0.79

K
s
Effect for the volume to Surface Ration =1.45-0.13(V/S)>=1.0 = 1

134
K
hc
humidity Factor for the Creep=1.56-0.008H

= 1.04

K
f
Factor for the effect of Concrete Strength =5/(1+f
ci
')

= 0.52

K
td
Time Development Factor=t/(61-4f
ci
'+t)

= 0.53

V Volume/Length of Double T Section

= 1182 in
2

S Surface Area/Length of Double T Section

= 311 in
H Average Annual Ambient mean Relative Humidity.

= 65 %
t
i
Age at Transfer (Days)

= 0.042 days
t
d
Age at Deck Placement (Days)

= 30.16 days
f
cgp
Stress at the CG of strands.

= 2.43 ksi

Material Properties

E
P
Modulus of Elasticity of Prestress Tendons

= 29000 ksi
E
CI
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete at Transfer

= 5297.01 ksi
f
ci
' specified concrete strength at the time of transfer.

= 8.64 ksi

Section Properties

A
PS
Area of Prestressing Steel

= 7.81 in
2

A
G
Gross Area of Composite Section

= 1182 in
2

I
G
Moment of Inertia of Gross concrete Section of Girder about Centriodal Axis = 116100 in
4

Eccentricity

e
PG
Eccentricity of Strand with respect to centroid of

= 11.18 in

135
pR2
Af
pR1
= Stress Loss Due to relaxation of Strands = f
pt
/K
L
*(f
pt
/f
py
-0.55) = 1.89 ksi
cf
pR2
= Loss of Strain due to relaxation of Strand = 65.31 mm
f
pt
Stress in prestressing strands immediately after transfer, taken = 202 ksi
not less than 0.55fpy.
K
L
a constant 30 for low relaxation strand = 30

f
py
0.9*fpu = 243 ksi
f
pu
Tensile Strength of Low Relaxation Strand = 270 ksi

Af
pr2
in % Age = 0.94 %

Table C 1 (a-f): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beams

(a): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beam 1

NEXT Beam 1
Date Time Days
Cumulative
Strain
Cumulative
Stress
Stage-wise
Strain
Stage Wise
Stress
(C+S)%
Age Loss
CS SS CL SL CS SS CL SL
Stage c c ksi ksi c c ksi ksi
After Detentioning 4-26 8:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
On temporary
support 4-26 8:30 0.02 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01
Outside plant 4-28 8:30 2.02 44.64 17.69 1.30 0.51 44.16 17.50 1.29 0.50 0.89
Outside plant 5-26 12:15 30.16 323.47 128.20 9.38 3.72 278.83 110.51 8.08 3.21 6.47
Outside plant 8-05 11:35 101.15 471.98 187.07 13.69 5.43 148.51 58.87 4.31 1.71 9.44

NOTES: CS=Creep Strain; SS=Shrinkage Strain; CL=Creep Loss;SL=Shrinkage Loss; C=Creep;S=Shrinkage

136
(b): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beam 2

NEXT Beam 2
Date Time Days
Cumulative
Strain
Cumulative
Stress
Stage-wise
Strain
Stage Wise
Stress
(C+S)%
Age Loss
On temporary
support 4-22 8:30 0.02 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01
Outside plant 4-26 10:00 4.08 83.67 31.67 2.48 0.92 83.19 31.48 2.47 0.91 1.68
Outside plant 4-28 7:15 5.97 114.84 43.42 3.33 1.26 31.17 11.75 0.85 0.34 2.27
Outside plant 5-26 12:15 34.16 341.39 129.10 9.90 3.74 226.55 85.68 6.57 2.48 6.74
Outside plant 8-05 11:50 105.15 475.51 179.82 13.79 5.21 134.12 50.72 3.89 1.47 9.39


137
(c): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beam 3

NEXT Beam 3
Date Time Days
Cumulative
Strain
Cumulative
Stress
Stage-wise
Strain
Stage Wise
Stress
(C+S)%AgeLoss
After detentioning 4-22 8:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
On temporary
support 4-22 8:30 0.02 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01
Outside plant 4-26 10:00 4.08 83.67 31.67 2.48 0.92 83.19 31.48 2.47 0.91 1.68
Outside plant 4-28 7:15 5.97 114.84 43.42 3.33 1.26 31.17 11.75 0.85 0.34 2.27
Outside plant 5-26 11:30 34.16 341.39 129.10 9.90 3.74 226.55 85.68 6.57 2.48 6.74
Outside plant 8-05 11:50 105.15 475.51 179.82 13.79 5.21 134.12 50.72 3.89 1.47 9.39


138
(d): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beam 4

NEXT Beam 4
Date Time Days
Cumulative
Strain
Cumulative
Stress
Stage-wise
Strain
Stage Wise
Stress
(C+S)%AgeLoss
On temporary
support 4-26 8:30 0.02 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.48 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01
Outside plant 4-28 8:30 2.02 44.64 17.69 1.30 0.51 44.16 17.50 1.29 0.50 0.89
Outside plant 5-26 10:45 30.11 323.47 128.20 9.38 3.72 278.83 110.51 8.08 3.21 6.47
Outside plant 8-05 12:03 101.17 471.98 187.07 13.69 5.43 148.51 58.87 4.31 1.71 9.44
On Abutment 8-11 8:00 107.00 477.07 189.09 13.84 5.48 5.09 2.02 0.15 0.05 9.54
Fresh Concrete Pour 9-13 9:50 140.08 498.99 197.79 14.47 5.74 21.92 8.70 0.63 0.26 9.98


139
(e): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beam 5

NEXT Beam 5
Date Time Days
Cumulative
Strain
Cumulative
Stress
Stage-wise
Strain
Stage Wise
Stress
(C+S)%AgeLoss
On temporary
support 4-28 8:30 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01
Outside plant 5-26 11:05 28.13 313.33 124.19 9.09 3.60 313.32 124.00 9.08 3.59 6.26
Outside plant 8-5 12:07 98.17 469.20 185.10 13.61 5.39 155.87 60.91 4.52 1.79 9.38
On Abutment 8-11 11:13 104.00 474.52 188.08 13.76 5.45 5.32 2.98 0.15 0.06 9.49


140
(f): Details of Time Dependent Loss for NEXT Beam 6


NEXT Beam 6
Date Time Days
Cumulative
Strain
Cumulative
Stress
Stage-wise
Strain
Stage Wise
Stress
(C+S)%AgeLoss
On temporary
support 4-28 8:30 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01
Outside plant 5-26 12:10 28.13 313.33 124.19 9.09 3.60 313.32 124.00 9.08 3.59 6.26
Outside plant 8-5 12:07 98.17 469.20 185.10 13.61 5.39 155.87 60.91 4.52 1.79 9.38
On Abutment 8-11 11:20 104.00 474.52 188.08 13.76 5.45 5.32 2.98 0.15 0.06 9.49

141
APPENDIX D

STAGE WISE STRESS EVALUATION

Table D 1( a-f): Stage Wise Load Related Stress (By Analytical Method)

(a): Stress After Prestressing

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Duration
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
o
BI
ksi 3.74 3.74 3.78 3.70 3.70 3.66
o
MI
ksi 3.05 3.07 3.05 3.09 3.07 3.09
o
TI
ksi -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19 -0.19

(b): Stress after Short Term Losses

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Date
Time
10
Minutes
10
Minutes
10
Minutes
10
Minutes
10
Minutes
10
Minutes
o
BI
ksi 2.37 2.37 2.39 2.35 2.35 2.34
o
MI
ksi 2.05 2.06 2.05 2.07 2.06 2.07
o
TI
ksi 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53

142
c): Stress after placing on Temporary Support (Inside Casting Yard)

NEXT BEAM
Uni
t
Duration
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
o
BI
ksi 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18
o
MI
ksi 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14
o
TI
ksi -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12

(d): Stress after placing on Temporary Support (Outside Casting Yard)

NEXT BEAM
Unit
Duration
30
Days
4
Days
4
Days
2
Days
28
Days
28
Days
o
BI
ksi -0.033 -0.06 -0.06 -0.0326 -0.23 -0.23
o
MI
ksi -0.027 -0.05 -0.05 -0.0272 -0.19 -0.19
o
TI
ksi 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.0017 0.01 0.01

143
(e): Stress after placing on Temporary Support and Abutment (On Site)

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Date
Time
101
Days
6
Days
6
Days
30
Days
98
Days
98
Days
o
BI
ksi -0.209 -0.02 -0.02 -0.206 -0.12 -0.11
o
MI
ksi -0.170 -0.02 -0.02 -0.172 -0.10 -0.10
o
TI
ksi 0.011 0.00 0.00 0.011 0.01 0.01

(f): Stress after placing on Temporary Support (On Site)

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Duration
107
Days
34
Days
6
Days
101
Days
104
Days
104
Days
o
BI
ksi -0.111 -0.17 -0.17 -0.11 0.03 0.03
o
MI
ksi -0.091 -0.14 -0.14 -0.09 0.02 0.02
o
TI
ksi 0.006 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.02

144
(g): Stress after placing on Temporary Support

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
NEXT 2 NEXT 3 NEXT 4 NEXT 5 NEXT 6
Duration
105
Days
105
Days
107
Days
137
Days
136
Days
o
BI
ksi -0.10 -0.10 0.03 -0.68 -0.67
o
MI
ksi -0.08 -0.08 0.02 -0.50 -0.50
o
TI
ksi 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.44

(h): Stress after placing on Temporary Support

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
NEXT 4
Duration
140
Days
o
BI
ksi -0.68
o
MI
ksi -0.50
o
TI
ksi 0.44

145
APPENDIX E

STAGE WISE STRAIN EVALUATION

Table E 1(a-f): Stage Wise Cumulative Strain (By Analytical Method)

(a): Strain after Prestressing

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Duration

At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
At
Release
c
BI
c 690.16 690.16 697.20 683.11 683.11 676.07
c
MI
c 563.41 566.93 563.41 570.45 566.93 570.45
c
TI
c -35.11 -35.11 -35.11 -35.11 -35.11 -35.11

(b): Strain At Stage 1

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Duration
10
Minutes

10
Minutes

10
Minutes

10
Minutes

10
Minutes

10
Minutes

c
BI
c 437.69 437.69 440.99 434.39 434.39 431.09
c
MI
c 378.29 379.94 378.29 381.59 379.94 381.59
c
TI
c 97.79 97.79 97.79 97.79 97.79 97.79

146
(c): Strain after placing on Temporary Support (Inside Casting Yard)

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Date
Time
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
30
Minutes
c
BI
c 34.35 34.34 34.89 33.80 33.77 33.22
c
MI
c 24.43 24.70 24.43 24.98 24.69 24.96
c
TI
c -22.39 -22.38 -22.38 -22.39 -22.38 -22.38

(d): Strain after placing on Temporary Support (Outside Casting Yard)

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Duration
30
Days
4
Days
4
Days
2
Days
28
Days
28
Days
c
BI
c -4.63 -8.85 -8.79 -4.69 -33.11 -33.32
c
MI
c 0.29 0.55 0.55 0.29 2.05 2.05
c
TI
c -5.68 -10.77 -10.88 -5.62 -39.90 -39.49

147
(e): Strain after placing on Temporary Support and Abutment (On Site)

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Date
Time
101
Days
6
Days
6
Days
30
Days
98
Days
98
Days
c
BI
c -36.00 -3.79 -3.83 -35.63 -19.92 -19.72
c
MI
c -29.39 -3.11 -3.09 -29.76 -16.54 -16.64
c
TI
c 1.83 0.19 0.19 1.83 1.02 1.02

(f): Strain after placing on Temporary Support (On Site)

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
Duration
107
Days
34
Days
6
Days
101
Days
104
Days
104
Days
c
BI
c -19.16 -28.85 -29.14 -18.97 5.69 5.59
c
MI
c -15.64 -23.70 -23.55 -15.84 4.09 4.14
c
TI
c 0.97 1.47 1.47 0.97 -4.19 -4.19

148
(g): Strain after placing on Temporary Support

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
NEXT 2 NEXT 3 NEXT 4 NEXT 5 NEXT 6
Time
105
Days
105
Days
107
Days
137
Days
136
Days
c
BI
c -17.08 -17.25 5.76 -116.77 -114.88
c
MI
c -14.03 -13.94 4.20 -85.67 -86.61
c
TI
c 0.87 0.87 4.27 75.46 75.46

(h): Strain after placing on Temporary Support

NEXT
BEAM
Unit
NEXT 4
Time
140
Days
c
BI
c -116.70
c
MI
c -86.56
c
TI
c 75.46

149
APPENDIX F

STRAIN AND DATA IN FIELD

Table F 1 (a-f): Field Data for NEXT Beams

(a): Field Data for NEXT Beam 1

Date (Time)
Date: 04/26/2011 (07.00) Date: 04/26/2011 (08.10)
GEOKON 4200
20 Hrs After Concrete Pour 10 Minutes After Detensioning
Gage
Location Gage Label Strain() Temperature(C) Strain() Temperature(C)
Midspan 1-9 2529.3 67.6 2018.9 66.0
Midspan 1-10 2447.2 68.1 1984.1 67.2
Midspan 1-11 2505.4 69.1 2008.1 64.6
Midspan 1-12 2489.3 69.5 2028.1 65.0
Midspan 1-13 2436.9 64.5 2213.8 62.4
Midspan 1-14 2520.2 58.5 2501.1 51.4
Midspan 1-15 2627.5 67.6 2398.5 63.5
Midspan 1-16 2520.8 60.0 2482.7 52.5

150
(a): (continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/26/2011 (08.30) Date: 04/28/2011 (08.30)
GEOKON 4200
Temprory Support (Casting Yard) Temprory Support (Outside Yard)
Gage Location Gage Label Strain() Temperature(C) Strain() Temperature(C)
Midspan 1-9 1901.7 64.9 1712.3 22.7
Midspan 1-10 1891.0 66.2 1753.4 22.9
Midspan 1-11 1864.0 63.0 1674.8 22.7
Midspan 1-12 1915.9 63.7 1781.0 22.9
Midspan 1-13 2249.7 60.4 2204.7 22.3
Midspan 1-14 2493.6 47.2 2410.7 21.6
Midspan 1-15 2430.2 60.9 2405.1 22.4
Midspan 1-16 2470.4 47.0 2408.9 21.8

151
(a): (continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 05/26/2011 (12:15) 8/5/2011(11:35)
GEOKON 4200
Temprory Support (Outside Yard) Temprory Support (Outside Yard)
Midspan 1-9 1645.6 20.7 1561.2 23.0
Midspan 1-10 1725.0 20.5 1630.8 23.3
Midspan 1-11 1584.2 22.8 1485.9 24.1
Midspan 1-12 1727.1 22.8 1623.0 24.5
Midspan 1-13 2211.4 27.2 2151.0 27.5
Midspan 1-14 2400.7 34.2 4337.5 30.1
Midspan 1-15 2394.7 30.0 2328.7 28.0
Midspan 1-16 2416.6 35.7 2345.5 32.3

152
(b): Field Data for NEXT Beam 2

Date (Time)
Date: 04/22/2011 (07.00) Date: 04/22/2011 (8.10)
GEOKON 4200
20Hrs After Concrete is
poured
10 Minutes After DE tensioning
Midspan 2-9 2451.9 68.4 1988.1 66.2
Midspan 2-10 2369.4 69.4 1965.0 67.4
Midspan 2-11 2457.8 67.7 2012.8 65.2
Midspan 2-12 2399.9 67.5 1989.9 67.4
Midspan 2-13 2536.6 57.2 2503.0 52.8
Midspan 2-14 2625.0 60.4 2410.4 59.6
Midspan 2-15 2458.6 58.3 2292.6 55.0
Midspan 2-16 2485.1 66.3 2293.3 65.1
Midspan 2-17 2329.9 64.1 2284.9 58.7

153
(b) (continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/22/2011 (08.30) Date: 04/26/2011 (10.00)
GEOKON 4200
Temprory Support (Casting
Yard)
Temprory Support (Outside Yard)
Midspan 2-9 1881.7 63.3 1755.5 12.4
Midspan 2-10 1880.8 64.5 1813.4 12.2
Midspan 2-11 1900.4 63.4 1765.6 13.1
Midspan 2-12 1894.1 64.2 1815.7 12.7
Midspan 2-13 2491.7 49.1 2491.4 17.5
Midspan 2-14 2431.8 58.1 2439.4 15.7
Midspan 2-15 2643.2 52.2 2623.1 16.8
Midspan 2-16 2321.1 61.2 2340.6 15.2
Midspan 2-17 2274.0 54.7 2289.1 16.2

154
(b) (continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/28/2011 (07.15) 26/5/2011(11:45)
GEOKON 4200
Temprory Support (Outside
Yard)
Midspan 2-9 1764.5 21.2 1685.3 20.8
Midspan 2-10 1806.8 21.3 1769.4 20.5
Midspan 2-11 1772.0 21.5 1701.9 20.3
Midspan 2-12 1807.2 21.8 1767.6 20.0
Midspan 2-13 2460.3 21.0 2447.0 33.7
Midspan 2-14 2412.3 21.3 2390.4 29.8
Midspan 2-15 2596.2 20.5 2581.7 33.7
Midspan 2-16 2314.4 21.6 2300.3 27.4
Midspan 2-17 2264.3 21.3 2261.6 30.9

155

(b) (continued)

Date (Time)
8/5/2011(11:50)
GEOKON 4200
Yard)
Gage Location Gage Label Strain() Temperature(C)
Midspan 2-9 1625.7 22.9
Midspan 2-10 1697.5 23.0
Midspan 2-11 1639.5 22.8
Midspan 2-12 1694.4 22.9
Midspan 2-13 2394.5 29.7
Midspan 2-14 2327.2 28.1
Midspan 2-15 2521.3 30.8
Midspan 2-16 2261.5 25.7
Midspan 2-17 2198.7 27.4

156
(c): Field Data for NEXT Beam 3

Date (Time)
Date: 04/22/2011 (07.00) Date: 04/22/2011 (08.10)
GEOKON 4200
20 Hrs After Concrete is
Poured
10 Hrs After De tensioning
Midspan 3-1 2672.9 68.6 2167.7 68.4
Midspan 3-2 2515.1 69.2 2057.9 67.8
Midspan 3-3 2561.3 67.1 2065.1 64.9
Midspan 3-4 2487.9 67.7 2044.8 66.2
Midspan 3-5 2278.3 62.5 2255.9 55.3
Midspan 3-6 2477.5 68.2 2306.2 67.3
Midspan 3-7 2518.4 61.8 2491.6 59.9
Midspan 3-8 2450.2 63.8 2261.4 61.0
Midspan 3-9 2508.2 59.6 2480.0 53.6

157
(c) (Continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/22/2011 (08.30) Date: 04/26/2011 (10.00)
GEOKON 4200
Temprory Support (Casting
Yard)
Yard)
Midspan 3-1 2063.9 66.1 1923.7 14.6
Midspan 3-2 1972.9 67.7 1888.8 14.0
Midspan 3-3 1965.1 62.9 1825.3 12.8
Midspan 3-4 1959.6 64.4 1889.9 12.4
Midspan 3-5 2266.2 48.3 2262.4 19.8
Midspan 3-6 2340.7 64.0 2374.4 15.0
Midspan 3-7 2479.1 57.4 2543.0 18.0
Midspan 3-8 2274.1 58.3 2310.3 15.2
Midspan 3-9 2469.3 48.3 2506.7 17.2

158
(c) (Continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/28/2011 (7:15) 5/26/2011(11:30)
GEOKON 4200
Yard)
Yard)
Midspan 3-1 1938.3 21.6 1828.4 25.7
Midspan 3-2 1884.2 21.8 1813.4 24.8
Midspan 3-3 1834.9 21.4 1764.0 20.7
Midspan 3-4 1880.9 21.5 1847.8 20.5
Midspan 3-5 2232.1 21.1 2218.9 35.9
Midspan 3-6 2334.2 21.6 2355.1 27.7
Midspan 3-7 2513.7 20.7 2514.0 32.4
Midspan 3-8 2287.2 21.6 2271.4 27.7
Midspan 3-9 2479.1 21.2 2481.3 33.1

159
(c) (Continued)

Date (Time)
8/5/2011(11:55)
GEOKON 4200
Yard)
Midspan 3-1 1758.0 27.2
Midspan 3-2 1729.9 26.9
Midspan 3-3 1688.1 23.1
Midspan 3-4 1760.8 23.3
Midspan 3-5 2128.7 34.9
Midspan 3-6 2260.3 28.8
Midspan 3-7 2437.2 31.5
Midspan 3-8 2220.3 27.5
Midspan 3-9 2393.9 31.1

160
(d): Field Data for NEXT Beam 4

Date (Time)
Date: 04/26/2011 (07.00) Date: 04/26/2011 (08.10)
GEOKON 4200
20 Hrs After Concrete Pour Temprory Support (Inside Yard)
Midspan 4-1 2441.2 70.3 1892.8 65.8
Midspan 4-2 2423.5 70.0 1927.0 65.9
Midspan 4-3 2528.7 67.3 1977.3 65.7
Midspan 4-4 2463.1 70.7 1953.3 66.3
Midspan 4-5 2384.2 61.5 2369.5 55.6
Midspan 4-6 2334.8 67.5 2149.3 64.5
Midspan 4-7 2573.5 60.1 2547.5 55.7
Midspan 4-8 2577.0 68.5 2365.7 64.0
Midspan 4-9 2486.5 61.4 2426.0 54.4

161
(d) (Continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/26/2011 (8.30) Date: 04/28/2011 (8.30)
GEOKON 4200
Temporary Support (OutsideYard) Temporary Support (Outside Yard)
Midspan 4-1 1783.3 64.4 1600.8 22.5
Midspan 4-2 1822.8 64.4 1675.3 23.0
Midspan 4-3 1852.6 64.3 1658.4 22.8
Midspan 4-4 1859.2 64.6 1719.6 22.7
Midspan 4-5 2355.7 51.1 2303.0 21.9
Midspan 4-6 2179.9 62.7 2442.3 22.3
Midspan 4-7 2544.0 52.1 2505.4 21.6
Midspan 4-8 2395.5 61.2 2363.2 22.5
Midspan 4-9 2467.7 50.4 2330.5 21.7

162
(d) (Continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 05/26/2011 (10.45) 8/5/2011(12:03)
GEOKON 4200
Midspan 4-1 1493.7 24.9 1378.2 28.1
Midspan 4-2 1650.0 19.5 1545.4 23.1
Midspan 4-3 1606.2 19.5 1499.0 23.0
Midspan 4-4 1646.2 25.6 1533.3 28.3
Midspan 4-5 2301.4 29.4 2197.2 34.0
Midspan 4-6 2176.1 24.8 2082.7 29.7
Midspan 4-7 2524.9 30.3 2456.4 32.3
Midspan 4-8 2383.3 25.8 2317.0 27.9
Midspan 4-9 2397.5 24.8 2356.2 30.0

163
(d) (Continued)

Date (Time)
8/11/2011(8:00) 9/13/2011 (7:15)
GEOKON 4200
NEXT beam on Abutment After Fresh Concrete Pour
Midspan 4-1 1442.4 21.2 1541.6 20.1
Midspan 4-2 1563.6 22.0 1635.7 21.4
Midspan 4-3 1544.8 21.7 1641.4 20.9
Midspan 4-4 1562.3 21.6 1642.0 20.5
Midspan 4-5 2198.3 17.8 2244.5 22.1
Midspan 4-6 2050.2 19.8 1944.7 23.0
Midspan 4-7 2480.9 20.3 2460.1 22.5
Midspan 4-8 2302.1 20.1 2185.0 23.5
Midspan 4-9 2345.9 17.9 2340.1 23.2

164
(d) (Continued)

Date (Time)
9/22/2011(7:40)
GEOKON 4200
9 Days After Fresh Concrete Pourr
Midspan 4-1 1569.8 19.5
Midspan 4-2 1657.9 19.5
Midspan 4-3 1656.1 19.7
Midspan 4-4 1674.7 19.4
Midspan 4-5 2252.8 20.3
Midspan 4-6 1969.9 19.5
Midspan 4-7 2480.3 20.7
Midspan 4-8 2215.3 20.0
Midspan 4-9 2342.1 20.7

165
(e) : Field Data for NEXT Beam 5

Date (Time)
Date: 04/28/2011 (07.00) Date: 04/28/2011 (08.10)
GEOKON 4200
20hrs After Concrete is Poured 10 minutes After Detensioning
Mid-span 5-1 2579.0 67.4 2090.0 65.2
Mid-span 5-2 2582.6 69.1 2142.4 67.5
Mid-span 5-3 2588.5 66.7 2084.7 64.9
Mid-span 5-4 2638.9 68.2 2199.9 66.6
Mid-span 5-5 2536.8 58.8 2500.3 54.1
Mid-span 5-6 2621.9 67.2 2437.6 63.6
Mid-span 5-7 2689.6 61.3 2668.1 58.6
Mid-span 5-8 2725.9 65.2 2538.5 62.2
Mid-span 5-9 2411.4 59.6 2372.3 54.1

166
(e) (Continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/28/2011 (08.30) Date: 05/26/2011 (11.05)
GEOKON 4200
Temprory Support (Casting Yard) Temprory Support (Outside Yard)
Mid-span 5-1 1968.9 61.8 1767.9 19.5
Mid-span 5-2 2044.8 64.2 1902.3 19.6
Mid-span 5-3 1953.7 62.7 1756.9 19.4
Mid-span 5-4 2093.6 64.3 1972.0 19.3
Mid-span 5-5 2505.2 49.8 2446.7 26.5
Mid-span 5-6 2468.7 61.1 2459.3 23.4
Mid-span 5-7 2664.7 57.2 2641.1 29.6
Mid-span 5-8 2567.0 60.0 2505.5 25.7
Mid-span 5-9 2366.9 48.0 2313.4 27.5

167
(e) (Continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 08/05/2011 (12.07) 8/11/2011(11:13)
GEOKON 4200
Mid-span 5-1 1670.7 22.8 1705.7 20.9
Mid-span 5-2 1795.8 23.0 1816.4 21.4
Mid-span 5-3 1668.2 22.4 1701.9 21.3
Mid-span 5-4 1880.3 22.5 1890.4 21.4
Mid-span 5-5 2337.1 31.8 2352.8 19.9
Mid-span 5-6 2369.2 26.7 2348.7 20.6
Mid-span 5-7 2562.4 31.2 2541.8 19.8
Mid-span 5-8 2441.1 25.4 2421.7 20.2
Mid-span 5-9 2253.9 29.3 2192.3 20.0

168
(e) (Continued)

Date (Time)
9/13/2011 9/22/2011
GEOKON 4200
After Fresh concrete Pour After 9 days of Concrete pour
(Not in Scope of Thesis)
Mid-span 5-1 1801.8 20.6 1808.6 19.5
Mid-span 5-2 1874.1 21.3 1889.0 19.3
Mid-span 5-3 1805.4 20.6 1838.2 19.6
Mid-span 5-4 1959.0 20.9 1974.6 19.2
Mid-span 5-5 2340.5 23.1 2353.2 20.7
Mid-span 5-6 2234.5 23.5 2267.4 19.7
Mid-span 5-7 2545.6 22.6 2560.5 20.5
Mid-span 5-8 2306.7 23.3 2340.7 19.4
Mid-span 5-9 2239.0 22.9 2253.7 20.2

169
(f): Field Data for NEXT Beam 6

Date (Time)
Date: 04/28/2011 (07:00) 4/28/2011(08:10)
GEOKON 4200
20hrs After Concrete is
Poured
10 minutes After Detensioning
Mid-span
6-1
2590.0 68.7 2146.7 67.3
Mid-span
6-2
2592.1 69.4 2189.9 68.5
Mid-span
6-3
2508.9 68.4 2098.6 66.6
Mid-span
6-4
2458.5 67.8 2015.0 65.7
Mid-span
6-5
2515.2 66.6 2281.1 65.1
Mid-span
6-6
2516.2 67.9 2310.9 64.7

170

(f) (Continued)

Date (Time)
Date: 04/28/2011 (08:30) 5/26/2011(11:05)
GEOKON 4200
Temprory Support (Inside
Yard)
Mid-span 6-1 2007.9 64.9 1814.9 19.9
Mid-span 6-2 2071.7 66.9 1956.0 19.6
Mid-span 6-3 1964.2 66.3 1826.3 21.6
Mid-span 6-4 1858.3 64.1 1650.8 21.8
Mid-span 6-5 2311.6 64.2 2310.5 25.7
Mid-span 6-6 2357.0 60.8 2317.3 27.9

Date (Time)
8/05/2011(12:10) 8/11/2011(11:20)
GEOKON 4200
Yard)
NEXT beam on Abutment
Mid-span 6-1 1720.5 22.9 1754.5 21.3
Mid-span 6-2 1861.6 22.7 1872.6 21.4
Mid-span 6-3 1719.7 24.4 1725.9 23.3
Mid-span 6-4 1552.5 24.4 1584.0 22.9
Mid-span 6-5 2224.0 27.7 2206.2 20.4
Mid-span 6-6 2224.6 28.8 2208.5 21.6

171

(f) (Continued)

Date (Time)
9/13/2011(09:40) 9/22/2011 (16:30)
GEOKON 4200
After Concrete pour 9 Days After Concrete Pour
(Not in Scope of Thesis)
Mid-span 6-1 1541.6 20.1 1569.8 19.5
Mid-span 6-2 1635.7 21.4 1657.9 19.5
Mid-span 6-3 1641.4 20.9 1656.1 19.7
Mid-span 6-4 1642.0 20.5 1674.7 19.4
Mid-span 6-5 2244.5 22.1 2252.8 20.3
Mid-span 6-6 1944.7 23.0 1969.9 19.5

172
APPENDIX G

STRAIN VARIATION FOR DIFFERENT STAGES

To get the strain variation, temperature as well as strain both is measured. The filed data will be used to evaluate individual load
related strain and cumulative strain at different stages.
Equation 6.1 will be used to obtain the true load related strains.

True
= (R1-R0) B + (T1-T0) (C1-C2) ..Equation G.1
Where,
True
= true load related strain.
R
1
= measured strains at present stage.
R
0
= measured strains at previous stage.
B =0.975 is calibration factor
T
1
= measured temperature at present stage.
T
0
= measured temperature at previous stage
C
1
o
C
2
o

173
Based on Equation E.1 individual true load related strains are calculated. The individual load related strain are listed in Table E.1 and
E.2.
Table G 1(a-f): Stage Wise True Load Related Strain for NEXT Beams

(a) Wise True Load Related Strain for NEXT Beam1

GEOKON
4200
Date
04/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011
Time
7:00 8:10 8:30 8:30 0:15 11:35
Instrument
Depth from BF
20 hrs After
Pour
ES+R C+S C+S C+S C+S
Gage Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
1-9 3.75 -214 -501 -117 -278 -69 -77
1-10 8.25 -221 -454 -93 -229 -33 -86
1-13 29.50 -192 -222 31 -128 17 -58

1-11 3.75 -234 -495 -144 -273 -88 -93
1-12 8.00 -244 -460 -112 -221 -53 -98
1-15 29.50 -205 -232 25 -109 7 -69

NOTES: ES=Elastic Shortening Loss; R= Relaxation Loss; C=Creep;S=Shrinkage; BF =Bottom Fiber

174
(b): Stage Wise True Load Related Strain for NEXT Beam 2

GEOKON
4200
Date
04/22/2011 4/22/2011 4/22/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011
Time
7:00 8:10 8:30 10:00 10:15 11:45 11:50
Instrument
Depth from
BF
20 hrs After
Pour
ES+R C+S C+S C+S C+S C+S
Gage Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
2-9 3.750 -243 -457 -110 -235 28 -78 -53
2-10 8.125 -245 -399 -88 -181 14 -38 -65
2-14 29.500 -173 -211 18 -86 -14 -3 -65
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2-11 3.750 -251 -439 -114 -242 25 -71 -55
2-12 8.125 -245 -400 -100 -190 12 -43 -65
2-16 29.500 -241 -190 19 -82 -11 -1 -42


175
(c): Stage Wise True Load Related Strain for NEXT Beam 3

GEOKON
4200
Date
04/26/2011 4/22/2011 4/22/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011
Time
7:00 8:00 8:30 10:00 7:15 11:30 11:55
Instrument
Depth from
BF
20 hrs After
Pour
ES+R C+S C+S C+S C+S C+S

3-1 3.50 -493 -106 -250 30 -98 -65
3-2 8.13 -449 -83 -200 13 -62 -77
3-6 29.50 -169 26 -75 -25 34 -69

3-3 3.50 -489 -102 -247 28 -71 -90
3-4 8.25 -435 -87 -182 11 -34 -90
3-8 29.50 -190 6 -60 -8 -2 -77


176
(d): Stage Wise True Load related Strain NEXT Beam 4

GEO
KON
4200
Date
04/26/20
11 4/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011 8/11/2011 9/13/2011 9/22/2011
Tim
e
7:00 8:00 8:30 8:30 10:45 12:03 8:00 9:50 16:30
Dep
th
fro
m
BF
20 hrs.
After
Pour
ES+R C+S C+S C+S C+S C+S Fresh
Concrete+
C+S
C+S
(Not in
Scope)
Gage
Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
4-1 4.3 -163 -545 -110 -270 -99 -106 47 94 26
4-2 8.0 -199 -493 -105 -235 -32 -94 15 69 17
4-6 29.5 -174 -187 26 167 -254 -80 -53 -96 17

4-3 4.0 -185 -541 -125 -281 -58 -97 42 92 12
4-4 7.8 -185 -507 -95 -228 -65 -104 14 75 29
4-8 29.5 -188 -216 23 -117 27 -60 -32 -107 22


177
(e): Stage Wise True Load related Strain NEXT Beam 5

GEOKO
N 4200
Date

04/28/2
011
4/28/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011 8/11/2011 9/13/2011 9/22/2011
Time 7:00 8:00 8:30 11:05 12:07 11:03 8:00 9:50
Instrum
ent
Depth
from
BF
20 hrs
After
Pour
ES+R C+S+R C+S+R C+S+R C+S+R Fresh
Concrete+C+
S

C+S
(Not in
Scope)
Gage
Label y
Strain(
) Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
5-1 4.25 -186 -482 -126 -289 -88 30 93 4
5-2 7.875 -190 -433 -102 -237 -96 17 56 10
5-6 29.50 -196 -188 25 -92 -81 -33 -105 24

5-3 3.875 -164 -495 -133 -287 -80 30 99 30
5-4 8.125 -195 -432 -109 -218 -82 7 66 11
5-8 29.50 -159 -189 23 -135 -63 -30 -105 25


178
(f): Stage Wise True Load related Strain NEXT Beam 6

GEOKON
4200
Date 04/28/2011 4/28/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011 8/11/2011 9/13/2011 9/22/2011
Time 7:00 8:00 8:30 8:30 10:45 12:03 8:00 16:30
Instrument
Depth from
BF
20 hrs After
Pour
ES+R C+S C+S C+S C+S C+S+Deck C+S
(Not in Scope)
Gage Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
6-1 4.25 -223 -435 -141 -287 -85 30 112 17
6-2 8.00 -230 -394 -119 -217 -85 8 81 22
6-6 29.50 -191 -232 28 -86 -80 -33 -117 27

6-3 4.00 -230 -404 -132 -233 -98 4 106 26
6-4 7.75 -213 -437 -156 -295 -90 27 140 29
6-5 29.50 -186 -207 36 -111 -88 -32 -114 14


179
APPENDIX H

STAGE WISE CUMULATIVE STRAIN

Table H 1(a-f): Stage Wise Cumulative Strain for NEXT Beams

(a): Stage Wise Cumulative Strain for NEXT Beam 1

GEOKON 4200
Date 04/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011
Time 7:00 8:00 8:30 8:30 10:45 12:03
Instrument Depth from BF
20 hrs After Pour Inside CY Inside CY Outside CY Outside CY Outside CY
Gage Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
1-9 3.75 -214 -715 -832 -1109 -1179 -1256
1-10 8.25 -221 -674 -767 -997 -1029 -1115
1-13 29.50 -192 -414 -383 -511 -494 -552

1-11 3.75 -234 -729 -873 -1146 -1234 -1327
1-12 8.00 -244 -704 -816 -1037 -1090 -1188
1-15 29.50 -205 -437 -412 -521 -514 -583


180

(b): Stage Wise Cumulative Strains NEXT Beam 2

GEOKON
4200
Date
04/22/2011 4/22/2011 4/22/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011
Time
7:00 8:00 8:30 10:00 10:15 11:45 11:50
Depth from
BF
20 hrs After
Pour
Inside CY Inside CY Outside
CY
Outside
CY
Outside
CY
On Site BP
2-9 3.750 -243 -700 -810 -1045 -1017 -1095 -1149
2-10 8.125 -245 -644 -732 -913 -899 -938 -1002
2-14 29.500 -173 -384 -366 -452 -466 -469 -534

2-11 3.750 -251 -691 -804 -1046 -1022 -1093 -1148
2-12 8.125 -245 -645 -745 -935 -923 -966 -1031
2-16 29.500 -241 -431 -412 -495 -506 -507 -549

\

181

(c): Stage Wise Cumulative Strains NEXT Beam 3

GEOKON
4200
Date
04/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011 8/11/2011
Time
7:00 8:00 8:30 8:30 10:45 12:03 8:00
Depth from
BF
20 hrs After
Pour
Inside CY Inside CY Outside
CY
Outside
CY
Outside
CY
On Site
BP
3-1 3.50 -493 -599 -849 -820 -918 -983
3-2 8.13 -449 -532 -732 -719 -782 -859
3-6 29.50 -169 -143 -218 -242 -208 -277

3-3 3.50 -489 -591 -837 -809 -879 -970
3-4 8.25 -435 -522 -705 -693 -728 -818
3-8 29.50 -190 -184 -243 -252 -254 -331

182
(d): Stage Wise Cumulative Strains NEXT Beam 4

GEOKON
4200
Date
04/26/2011
4/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011 8/11/2011 9/13/2011 9/22/2011
Time
7:00 8:00 8:30 8:30 10:45 12:03 8:00 9:50 16:30
Depth
from
BF
20 hrs.
After Pour
Inside
CY
Inside
CY
Outside
CY
Outside
CY
Outside
CY
On Site
BP
On Site
AP
On Site
AP
Gage
Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
4-1 4.3 -163 -708 -818 -1088 -1187 -1293 -1245 -1151 -1125
4-2 8.0 -199 -692 -797 -1032 -1065 -1159 -1143 -1074 -1057
4-6 29.5 -174 -362 -336 -169 -423 -503 -557 -653 -636

4-3 4.0 -185 -726 -851 -1131 -1190 -1286 -1245 -1152 -1141
4-4 7.8 -185 -691 -787 -1015 -1080 -1185 -1171 -1096 -1066
4-8 29.5 -188 -404 -381 -498 -471 -531 -562 -669 -647

BF Depth from Bottom fiber; CY Casting Yard; BP- Before Pour; AP After Pour of Fresh concrete

183
(e): Stage Wise Cumulative Strains NEXT Beam 5

GEOKON
4200
Date 04/28/2011 4/28/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011 8/11/2011 9/13/2011 9/22/2011
Time 7:00 8:00 8:30 11:05 12:07 11:03 8:00 9:50
Instrument
Depth from
BF
20 hrs After
Pour
Inside
CY
Inside
CY
Outside
CY
Outside
CY
Outside
CY
On Site
BP
On Site
AP
Gage Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
5-1 4.25 -186 -668 -793 -1082 -1170 -1140 -1047 -1042
5-2 7.875 -190 -622 -725 -962 -1058 -1042 -986 -975
5-6 29.50 -196 -384 -359 -451 -532 -565 -670 -647

5-3 3.875 -164 -659 -792 -1079 -1159 -1128 -1029 -999
5-4 8.125 -195 -627 -736 -953 -1036 -1028 -962 -951
5-8 29.50 -159 -348 -325 -461 -524 -555 -660 -635

184
f): Stage Wise Cumulative Strains NEXT Beam 6

GEOKO
N 4200
Date
04/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/26/2011 4/28/2011 5/26/2011 8/5/2011 8/11/2011 9/13/201
1
Time 7:00 8:00 8:30 8:30 10:45 12:03 8:00 16:30
Depth
from BF
20 hrs After
Pour
Inside CY Inside CY Outside CY Outside CY Outside
CY
On Site BP On Site
AP
Gage
Label y Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain() Strain()
6-1 4.25 -223 -659 -799 -1086 -1172 -1142 -1031 -1013
6-2 8.00 -230 -624 -743 -960 -1045 -1037 -956 -934
6-6 29.50 -191 -423 -395 -481 -561 -594 -711 -684

6-3 4.00 -230 -634 -766 -999 -1096 -1093 -987 -960
6-4 7.75 -213 -650 -806 -1102 -1192 -1164 -1024 -995
6-5 29.50 -186 -393 -357 -468 -557 -588 -702 -688

185
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alaa Helba, John B. Kennedy. Collapse Loads of Continuous Skew Composite
Bridges.. 5, 1994, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, pp. 1395-1415.
2. Scott A. Civjan, P.E., Christine Bonczar, Sergio F. Brea, Jason DeJong, Daniel
Crovo. Integral Abutment Bridge Behavior: Parametric Analysis of a Massachusetts
Bridge. 1, January/February 2007, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 64-67.
3. Sergio F. Brea, Christine H. Bonczar, Scott A. Civjan, Daniel S. Crovo.
Evaluation of Seasonal and Yearly Behavior of an Integral Abutment Bridge. 3,
May/June 2007, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 296-305.
4. Murat Dicleli, Semih Erhan. Effect of Soil and Sub structure Properties on Live-Load
Distribution in Integral Abutment Bridges. 5, 2008, Journal Bridge Engineering, Vol. 13,
p. 527.
5. Toorak Zokaie. AASHTO-LRFD Live Load Distribution Specifications. 2, May 2000,
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 5, pp. 131-138.
6. Bishara, A.G, Liu, M.C and and El-Ali, N.D. Wheel Load distribution on Simply
Supported Skew I-Beam Composite Bridges. 2, 1993, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 119, pp. 399-419.
7. University of Illinois Bulletin Engineering Experiment Station.Studies of Slab and
Beam Highway Bridges Part II: Test of Simple- Span Skew I- Beam Bridges,. 375,
8. Newmark, N.M and Peckham, W.M. Live load distribution equations for integral
Bridge sub structures. Erhan S., Dicleli M. 5, 2009, Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, pp.
1250-1264.
9. Zaher Yousif and Riyadh Hindi. AASHTO-LRFD Live Load Distribution for Beam-
and-Slab Bridges: Limitations and Applicability., J. Bridge Eng. 12, 765 (2007);
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:6(765) (9 pages)
10 , Paul J. Barr, Marc O. Eberhard, and John F. Stanton.Live-Load Distribution
Factors in Prestressed Concrete Girder BridgesJ. Bridge Eng. 6, 298 (2001);
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:5(298) (9 pages)

11. Devin K. Harris. Assessment of flexural lateral load distribution methodologies for
stringer Bridges. Engineering Structures, Volume 32, Issue 11, November 2010, Pages
3443-3451

12 . Ali R. Khaloo and H. Mirzabozorg. Load Distribution Factors in Simply Supported
Skew Bridges J. Bridge Eng. 8, 241 (2003); doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-
0702(2003)8:4(241) (4 pages)

186
13 . Yochia Chen. Distribution of vehicular loads on Bridge girders by the FEA using
ADINA: modeling, simulation, and comparison Original Computers & Structures,
Volume 72, Issues 1-3, July-August 1999, Pages 127-139

14. Fifth edition 2010 AASHTO LRFD Bridge design specification

15. NCHRP Report 592 Simplified Live Load distribution factor equation.

Master Thesis Civil 12

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Master Thesis Civil 12

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EVALUATION OF LIVE-LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS (LLDFs)

OF NEXT BEAM BRIDGES

Potrebbero piacerti anche